Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE

Film Industry

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what action he proposes to take on the report of the Interim Action Committee on the Film Industry.

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): I expect further reports from the Interim Action Committee on the setting up of a British Film Authority. Meanwhile we have begun consideration of the committee's proposals and I shall make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Silvester: When the Secretary of State considers these proposals, will he bear in mind one peculiarity of the report. Although it seeks a united authority for the whole of the film industry, it does not answer the question for which the Minister should be responsible because it leaves out the British Film Institute and that side of the industry. Is not that matter worthy of further consideration?

Mr. Dell: I shall take into consideration many factors, including the Government's commitment in respect of a British Film Authority. I remind the hon. Member that this is an interim report and that further reports will be made in due course.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend look urgently at the question of the Children's Film Foundation, because its work is recognised internationally? It appears that, whilst it is waiting for a final report, it will be faced with considerable difficulty. Will my right hon. Friend look at its particular problem now and wait no longer?

Mr. Dell: I shall certainly consider that in my general consideration of the problems of the film industry.

USSR (Credit)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what proportion of the line of credit offered to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by the Government in 1975 has now been taken up.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Michael Meacher): The total value of contracts placed under the Anglo-Soviet Credit Agreement is now £441 million. This represents approximately 46 per cent. of the £950 million.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Minister aware of the concern in the chemical industry that this and other lines of credit offered by Western countries are being used to finance the setting up in the Soviet Union of chemical factories on the basis that they will be paid off by selling their products back to the West at prices which no doubt will be politically fixed? Does he not think that this is an undesirable practice? Will the Government take a lead in the EEC and OECD to work out guidelines for the Western countries to limit this practice?

Mr. Meacher: Buy-back arrangements are increasingly an aspect of trade, particularly with Eastern bloc countries, but they are not confined to them. It is for the commercial judgment of individual companies to decide whether to enter into contracts with the USSR and other COMECON countries when considering all the conditions that are attached to these contracts.

Import Substitution

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many officials in his Department are engaged wholly on matters related to import substitution.

Mr. Meacher: Import substitution is an inseparable part of work by officials on both external and internal commercial policies; none has it as his sole responsibility.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister think that that is good enough at a time when import penetration is making itself felt in areas such as commercial vehicles and components, where we have previously


been able to resist it? Does he not think that the time has come for a rigorous attack to reduce imports in order to maximise the gains from exports?

Mr. Meacher: I agree that we should have a rigorous attack in the form of major import substitution. That is a major part of our industrial strategy. The sector working parties have prepared home and overseas market sales objectives, and I am glad to be able to say that we are beginning to discuss them at individual company level, which is where the real decisions are made.

Inflation Accounting (Sandilands Report)

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress has been made towards implementation of the Sandilands Report on inflation accounting.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): The Inflation Accounting Steering Group, set up by the Accounting Standards Committee with financial assistance from the Government, is continuing its task of preparing a current cost accounting standard. Meanwhile, the ASC has issued interim guidelines recommending that listed companies include in their accounts a supplementary statement to show the effect of inflation on their results.

Mr. Smith: Does the Minister agree that publication of the Sandilands Report, the Morpeth Report and now the Hyde guidelines on inflation accounting has led to public confusion? Is he aware that the Morpeth Committee continues to do its work notwithstanding that its proposals were rejected by the Institute of Chartered Accountants? Will his Department give a lead in clarifying the situation?

Mr. Davis: I should have preferred to see more progress than has been made so far. The Hyde guidelines will prove to be of value, albeit within a limited scope. I do not take quite so gloomy a view as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Smith) about the progress that has been made.

Japanese Automobile Industry

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has received a report from the Society of Motor

Manufacturers and Traders on its latest talks with the Japanese automobile industry.

Mr. Dell: The main talks between the United Kingdom and Japanese motor industry associations open in Tokyo tomorrow. The Government attach importance to the achievement of a satisfactory outcome.

Mr. Miller: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Japanese motor car industry was unable to live up to its undertakings last year? In the event of that proving to be the case this year, will he indicate what action he is prepared to take to ensure that the limit is observed?

Mr. Dell: I am aware of the situation last year. Unfortunately, it was contributed to in substantial measure by the British motor car industry and its failure to produce sufficient cars during 1977. I do not propose at the moment, just before the negotiations in Tokyo take place, to issue threats of what action might be taken. I merely emphasise the importance of these talks being successful. I made that clear to Mr. Ushiba during his visit to London.

Mr. Madden: As we imported more cars from than we exported to the Common Market, does not my right hon. Friend believe that British motor car manufacturers need to talk to people other than the Japanese? This again demonstrates the problem of imports cancelling out exports.

Mr. Dell: The main duty of British motor car manufacturers, as of many other industries, is to produce good products and to sell them.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is it not encouraging that the Japanese motor car industry is obtaining British components, mainly from Lucas? Will the Secretary of State tell us about Mr. Ushiba's visit and his sincere efforts to assure the EEC that the Japanese wish to be good trading partners in the world community?

Mr. Dell: I am aware that the Japanese motor car industry is making some purchases of car components from this country. I very much welcome that trend, as I welcomed the visit last year of Japanese car manufacturers to investigate our components industry. But the


figures are still very small and in no way compensate for the very large imports of motor cars into this country.
Mr. Ushiba indicated that Japanese companies intended substantially to reduce their multilateral surplus this year and we, on our part, indicated the importance of their so doing.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, had the Tories' advice been taken regarding Meriden, the Japanese penetration of motor cycles would have been even greater? Will he also confirm that the Government did well not to take the advice of those civil servants and others who wanted to get rid of Meriden?
As regards Japanese import penetration across the whole range of car components, has not my right hon. Friend for about three years been telling us roughly what he has been saying this afternoon? Is not the truth that the Japanese are taking us for a ride?

Mr. Dell: The Government's position on Meriden is sufficiently well known without my re-emphasising it this afternoon.
As for being taken for a ride, the discussions take place between the British car manufacturing industry and the Japanese automobile manufacturers. There is little doubt that Japanese penetration into this country would have been greater than it is but for these agreements. I hope that there will be not merely an agreement with JAMA but that it will be adhered to and that British motor car manufacturers will produce more cars to sell in this country and overseas.

Company Reports (Green Paper)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received about the Green Paper on company reports, Command Paper No. 6888.

Mr. Clinton Davis: By Friday 3rd February my Department had received written comments from 86 organisations and individuals, representing a wide range of interests.

Mr. Canavan: Instead of giving in to pressures from the Stock Exchange, will the Government press ahead with new legislation to introduce a greater degree

of public accountability for companies to prevent a repetition of public scandals, such as SUITS, whose ex-chairman has been trying to keep in with the Government by having lunch with the Chancellor of the Exchequer during his recent visit to Glasgow?

Mr. Davis: I thought that my hon. Friend would allude to SUITS. There is no question of the Government giving in to pressures from the Stock Exchange. The Green Paper on company reports, coupled with the White Paper on proposed changes in company law which we have put to the country, indicate the Government's thinking. I think that my hon. Friend would, by and large, support those proposals.

Mr. Tim Smith: Before the very wide-ranging proposals contained in the Green Paper are implemented, will the Government ensure that there is either a reclassification of companies or that small businesses are exempted from the requirements?

Mr. Davis: I cannot give such an undertaking, because the consultative process on which we have embarked has only recently concluded and we have not yet considered the totality of the views put to us. I suggested some little time ago the idea of a three-tier arrangement, which I thought had generally found favour, but the details remain to be worked out.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend confirm or deny the report in The Guardian this morning that the CBI is opposed to the proposals in the Green Paper? Will he assure the House that, despite that opposition, the Government will insist on more disclosure of what companies are about since it is clear that their annual reports conceal more than they reveal? It is the democratic right of the public at large and of the workers within industries to have access to far more information than they have hitherto had.

Mr. Davis: The whole thrust of the Green Paper was designed to ensure that there would be greater accountability. I do not propose to comment on specific proposals, because we have not had sufficient opportunity to consider the views of those who put forward various recommendations and observations The


CBI's views will certainly be given the attention that they deserve.

Airports Policy

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he now expects to publish his White Paper on airport strategy.

Sir Nigel Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will reconsider the provision of a new London airport at Maplin, in view of the worsening conditions at Heathrow for travellers and of the increasing problem of aircraft noise for nearby residents.

Mr. Dell: The White Paper on airports policy, which was published on 1st February, reaffirms the decision to abandon Maplin and sets out the Government's conclusions on the way in which London area air traffic should be accommodated between now and 1990.

Mr. Jessel: Last week, when making his announcement, the Secretary of State said:
Our policy … envisages the provision of a fourth terminal at Heathrow".—[Official Report, 1st February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 456.]
As the Government have agreed, following representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle) and Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) and myself, to set up a public planning inquiry into a fourth terminal at Heathrow, on which the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) has expressed strong reservations, is the Secretary of State able to convince me or the public that he and the Government will look impartially at the evidence presented to the public inquiry on aircraft noise and other matters against a fourth terminal—or is the whole thing a public relations exercise?

Mr. Dell: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his recovery after his accident and wish him well.
We have decided to set up a public inquiry into a fourth terminal at Heathrow. The White Paper makes perfectly clear the Government's attitude to the necessity for a fourth terminal at Heathrow. That in no way brings in question the impartiality of the public inquiry.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is the Secretary of State aware that the idea put forward in the White Paper for the development of

Biggin Hill as a kind of mini-Heathrow is nonsensical? It may have been suitable for a war-time fighter station and in peace time for club flying, but is it not out of the question, on environmental grounds alone, for it to be developed as a first-class airport?

Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates slightly the role attributed to Big-gin Hill in the White Paper. The intention is that it should be used as a centre for general aviation, and it is suitable for that purpose.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, unless a positive decision about another London airport is taken rapidly, we shall soon have such slum conditions at Heathrow that it will be virtually impossible to attract travellers? It is because people want to travel to Heathrow that it is grossly overloaded at present.

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend will be aware that by the end of this year I hope that conditions at Heathrow will have been greatly improved by the provision of additional capacity. I certainly appreciate the difficulties caused by the present congestion at Heathrow. This emphasises the importance of the programme for diverting traffic to Gatwick, about which I made an announcement last April and which is referred to in the White Paper.
I do not think that this implies the necessity for a decision about a new airport at this time. There is still time before such a decision has to be made.

Mr. Scott: Will the Secretary of State explain why Blackbushe has been excluded from the section headed "General Aviation", bearing in mind that the CAA has always given Blackbushe its support as one of the big six general aviation airfields and there is no other airfield with hard runways in this part of England that could possibly replace it?

Mr. Dell: The position about Blackbushe is to be determined, in the first instance, by its owners in consultation with the local authority. I am afraid that there is no other comment that I can make on that today.

Mr. Parkinson: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people feel that the decision has already been taken about the next major London airport and that


that decision is that it is to be Stansted? Is he further aware that many people feel that the Department of Trade has been determined for a long time to make Stansted a major airport in spite of public inquiries which have come out against that decision?

Mr. Dell: I am certainly aware that many people think the decision has already been taken. I suppose that it was inevitable, when there are proposals in the White Paper that Stansted should take 4 million passengers, that people should assume that the decision has been taken. In fact, the options set out in the White Paper for the provision of services after 1990 are genuine options and there is no intention in the White Paper to foreclose this decision.

Mr. Newens: Will my right hon. Friend repudiate any suggestion that Stansted is to be the third London airport? Will he make it clear that many of us who are concerned about the development of air traffic in the London area generally, and are concerned also about Heathrow and Gatwick, think that it would be much more sensible for much of that traffic to be dispersed to the provinces?

Mr. Dell: I emphasised to my hon. Friend on Wednesday, and it is emphasised in the White Paper, that in the White Paper we state three options. Everything possible will be done to divert traffic from the South-East to the rest of the country. One of the steps towards achieving that will be the concentration on regional airports. Nevertheless, no one should exaggerate the possibilities of diversion from the South-East. Therefore, it is necessary for us to study the three options as rapidly as we can as trends in traffic become clearer.

Mr. Nott: Is not the only real option for a major airport, taking us into the 1990s, from Stansted, a green field site? Is it not the case that if we are to have the necessary airport capacity in the late 1980s and 1990s the planning for a greenfield site has to start very soon? The Government have avoided this issue.

Mr. Dell: I do not believe that the Government have avoided any issue upon which it is important to take decisions now. There are the three options of Stansted, a military airport, or, as the

hon. Gentleman says, a green field site. But, despite the forecasts that have been made, which are the best that we can now make, the traffic trends are not sufficiently established for us to commit the enormous expenditure that would be involved at this time.
It is far more sensible to allow a little time to pass to see how traffic trends develop. As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, 1977 was a special year and may be totally untypical. The increase in traffic in 1977 compared with that in 1976 was below the low trend of the forecast in the White Paper. Therefore, to reserve the position at the moment until the traffic trends become established is a sensible view to take.

Steel Products (Dumping)

Mr. Michael Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what evaluation he has made of recent measures proposed by the Government to prevent the dumping of steel products in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dell: The measures approved by the Council of Ministers for the European Coal and Steel Community as a whole are being implemented by the Commission. I am satisfied with the progress in the imposition of provisional antidumping duties, and I am following carefully the Commission's negotiations with the major supplying countries.

Mr. Marshall: Will the Secretary of State expand on that answer?

Mr. Dell: I will do so at considerable length if the hon. Gentleman wishes. As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, the Community has decided that in the first instance provisional duties can be placed on imports on the application of member countries where the price of those imports is below minimum reference prices established by the Commission. This is regarded as being, for the most part, an interim situation. During this interim period the Commission will be negotiating with our major supplying countries on the price of supply and the quantities of supply. We hope that in two or three months the position on that matter will become clearer.

Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend say what usful information has so far


emerged from the system of surveillance licensing, especially in special steel, which was introduced about six months ago?

Mr. Dell: Surveillance licensing has the simple effect of telling us what licences are being applied for. We made clear when introducing the system that we did not expect it to have exactly the value which those who made representations to us thought that it would have. Nevertheless, we thought that on an experimental basis we should introduce it. We introduced the system, and we are now getting that sort of information which is being studied. The system which has been set up by the Council of Ministers as a result of the decisions of December and January will greatly help the steel industry of the United Kingdom and of the Community to sustain itself in the present time of very great difficulty.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Is it not a fact that the reference pricing system was very unstable at the end of last year? Is the Minister satisfied that Commissioner Davignon has been able to achieve order within the European steel industry, let alone deal with competition from outside?

Mr. Dell: Yes. One of the problems with the reference pricing system last year was that the prices tended to be undermined by the prices of imports. One of the purposes of these negotiations with major suppliers is to ensure that there is a reasonable relationship between the minimum reference prices and the prices of imports. I hope that that will be achieved. There are at the moment problems about certain products manufactured in the United Kingdom because those prices are higher than the typical prices within Europe. I have discussed that with Commissioner Davignon and I hope that some way of dealing with the problem will be found.

Invisible Trade Prospects

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he is taking to fulfil the Prime Minister's wish to see invisible trade prospects improved.

Mr. Dell: My Department offers a wide range of services to invisible exporters and is actively assisting the invisibles sector in identifying and pursung opportunities for improving overseas earnings.

Mr. Adley: Has the Secretary of State noticed that most of the service industries which make such a good contribution to the British balance of payments are in the private sector, demand little by way of Government assistance, and are not very heavily trade unionised? Will he tell us what conclusion he draws from that? Does he agree that what those companies need is a fair deal from the Treasury over taxation policies vis-à-vis our European competitors?

Mr. Dell: I note that those parts of the economy are in the private sector. I am delighted that they are doing well and are increasing their earnings. No doubt the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Treasury will be conveyed to it. I wish to give the invisible earnings sector of our economy every encouragement. I think that we are now doing so.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that for tourism to succeed it needs hotels that are subsidised to some extent by Government money—both now and in the past—and that most tourists come to see the public institutions which are catered for and financed by the taxpayer?

Mr. Dell: I think that tourists come to this country for many reasons. They come to see the beauty of the country and to see the many buildings in the public and private sectors. I shall encourage them to continue to do so.

Mr. Nott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our shipping industry is probably amongst the largest contributors to our invisible balance of payments? Does he think that to give ships away to COMECON countries and to persuade India and other countries to take ships under our aid programme will help the invisible earnings of this country in future years?

Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is again based on the assumption that if we do not build these ships they will not be built. That is not the position. It is a factor in world shipping—a factor of which we shall have to take increasing note—that many developing countries are building their own fleets. Unfortunately, most of them are building their fleets not in this country but in other developing countries as well


as in their own shipbuilding yards. That is a factor of competition of which we shall have to take account. The question of the relationship between the developing world and the more developed sections of the developing world must occupy our thoughts. Indeed, it is part of the negotiations in other respects which will take place in the multilateral trade negotiations. There is no chance of this development being avoided.

Multilateral Trade Negotiations

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied with the Government's progress in promoting free and fair international trade.

Mr. Higgins: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied with progress in the present round of multilateral trade negotiations.

Mr. Dell: The Government's policy is to work for the maintenance of the open world trading system, though one adapted to the realities of the present economic situation. The success of the multilateral trade negotiations is a central element in this policy, and I am glad to say that the major participants have agreed to enter the substantive phase of the negotiations on the basis of a number of working hypotheses relating to the various matters at issue. I hope that it will now be possible to draw the negotiations to an early and positive conclusion.

Mr. Renton: Will the right hon. Gentleman expand that answer in layman's language? Can he say simply what initiative the Government will take in the mulilateral trade negotiations in Geneva that might combat the growing trend towards protectionism in the Western world and lead to a further liberalisation of world trade?

Mr. Dell: I think that the hon. Gentleman will be able to understand the answer when he reads it, even if he did not understand it when he heard it. The initiatives which the Government are taking in respect of these negotiations have been incorporated in the mandate of the European Community which will be negotiated at Geneva. They include such matters as a reduction in tariffs on a harmonising basis, a selective safeguard, which we think is essential in the world as it is so as to enable selective action to be taken,

and a break in the phasing of tariff reductions. Those are the main elements in the negotiating mandate.

Mr. Higgins: What proposals has the right hon. Gentleman put forward for the reform of Article XIX of the GATT in these negotiations? Can he confirm, with regard to the CAP, that there will be no inhibitions whatsoever on the British Government in discussing that either in the plenary or the committee sessions?

Mr. Dell: With regard to Article XIX of the GATT, we have proposed a selective safeguard; in other words, a safeguard which can be operated on a discriminatory instead of a non-discriminatory basis.
With regard to agriculture, certain initial proposals have been made by the Community. We accept that these negotiations cannot be used as a way of undermining the principles of the CAP, but we hope that there will be movement in this area towards an agreement satisfactory to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the very existence of the EEC and its protective habits are contrary to this philosophy of free trade? Will he therefore seriously look again at this matter of the CAP, which in itself is the embodiment of protectionism?

Mr. Dell: Sometimes I hear that the EEC is protectionist, and sometimes I hear that it is too devoted to free trade. It is sometimes difficult to choose between the two. I think that the EEC operates in world trade in the way that most individual participants in world trade do, which is to help its industries, and it is not untypical that the agriculture industry should be assisted. It is not so easy to get agricultural products into the United States, as many suppliers of agricultural products sometimes find.

Mr. Nott: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that non-tariff barriers are probably a much greater cause of growing world protectionism than tariffs themselves, and in particular the subsidisation of declining industries, such as shipbuilding, and political pricing? Do the Government agree with the draft guidelines which have been produced on non-tariff barriers, and will they be supporting them in the negotiations which are going on in Geneva?

Mr. Dell: There are no firm guidelines on non-tariff barriers. Various informal documents are being circulated, and these are the subject of discussion. Obviously it would be useful to make an advance in dealing with non-tariff barriers. The hon. Gentleman will realise that there is probably no aspect of international trade in which it is more difficult to make progress, because of the difficulty of surveying what is happening and ensuring that people are adhering to the rules laid down.

Mr. Jay: Why do not the Government use these negotiations to help in reforming the CAP, which is the most extreme form of protectionism in the world?

Mr. Dell: Relative forms of protectionism in agriculture might be more difficult to establish than my right hon. Friend assumes. I hope that some progress in dealing with the agriculture issue will be possible and that some greater access will be permitted, and that we shall be able to do something about trade in third markets, but I think that it would be wrong to exaggerate the possibilities created by these negotiations for changing the CAP.

British Airports Authority

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he next proposes to meet the Chairman of the British Airports Authority.

Mr. Clinton Davis: My right hon. Friend and I met the Chairman of the British Airports Authority on 31st January. I have no plans for a further meeting in the immediate future.

Mr. Newens: Before my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend again meet the Chairman of the BAA, will they study with care the history of the Stansted affair in the 1960s, and in particular the Roskill Report, which utterly and completely demolished the arguments of the air traffic lobby for the development of Stansted as London's third airport on environmental, planning and noise grounds? Will my hon. Friend discuss with the Chairman of the BAA the possibility of giving an undertaking that a capacity of 4 million passengers will be the final upper limit on development at Stansted and therefore a safeguard for the future?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is asking, by a more roundabout route, the question that he asked my right hon. Friend in another respect, and I give him the same answer without actually rehearsing it.
On the question of studying the Roskill Report, the history of Stansted, and so on, these are matters to which my right hon. Friend and I addressed ourselves, but what is proposed for Stansted within the scope of the White Paper, in the more immediate future up to 1990, is specifically stated, and that is limiting the growth of Stansted in that period to 4 million passengers.

Mr. Adley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be a welcome for the general proposition in the White Paper that the large cities which create the traffic are the places where the airports should be located? Will he confirm that unless and until the present Government or any other possess powers to direct foreign airlines to use specific airports there is no point in thinking about a third London airport unless and until the Government propose to close Heathdow, which presumably they have no intention of doing?

Mr. Davis: I do not think it would be right to assert that all large cities must of necessity have an airport.

Mr. Adley: I did not say that.

Mr. Davis: What we are proposing in the concentration of resources assists not only the national airports strategy but the development of regional air traffic.
On the question of direction, we prefer to try to influence rather than direct airlines, if that is possible. If it proves not to be possible, we shall, of course, have to reserve our right to direct.

Mr. Dalyell: If I may ask the question that I asked last week, does my hon. Friend recollect that the Secretary of State said that the decision to devolve responsibility for Scottish airports to the proposed Assembly was taken not on technical grounds but on political grounds? Do the Government think that such a decision should bow to political considerations rather than to technical considerations which are completely against it?

Mr. Davis: I think that the basis upon which the Government determined their


policy in Scotland was dependent to some extent upon the views that were expressed in this House, and to some extent on the view that the Scottish devolution Bill was likely to become law, and that it was appropriate in those circumstances—

Mr. Dalyell: Give the Assembly a job.

Mr. Davis: —for the—

Mr. Dalyell: Just give it something to do.

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend cannot stop his belligerence on this issue from spilling over into trade questions. This is a matter for the Scottish Assembly, and I believe that is right.

Mrs. Bain: Can the Minister indicate whether any discussions have taken place about the experiments of take-off and landing techniques which took place at Heathrow last year? Will they be extended to Gatwick? Also, is there a possibility of an interim report, in view of the implications for all areas that are subjected to high noise levels?

Mr. Davis: The experiment has taken rather longer than we originally thought. I assure the hon. Member that a statement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Shersby: When the Minister next speaks to the Chairman of the British Airports Authority, will he discuss the way in which 25 million to 40 million passengers using Heathrow get to and from the airport? Will he bear in mind the present heavy use of the traffic infrastructure?

Mr. Davis: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to interlining between Heathrow and Gatwick—

Mr. Shersby: No, I am not.

Mr. Davis: —this is a matter which is attracting the attention of the British Airports Authority at present. I hope that the new Underground link will assist materially access to Heathrow, but we shall have to keep the matter under close review.

European Community

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what figure he estimates for the trade deficit with other EEC member States in the second half of 1977 com

pared with the first halt and the first and second halves of 1976.

Mr. Meacher: In the four half-year periods beginning with the first half of 1976, our crude trade deficits with the rest of the EEC have been £1,041 million, £1,100 million, £1,017 million and £985 million respectively.

Mr. Dykes: Now that the trend in trade with the EEC is going the other way, will the Minister note that the anti-EEC forces have become silent and we do not hear so much about the persistent uncontrollable deficit within the Community? [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman must be joking."] Does he agree that these figures show that the EEC deficit is declining, just as deficits are declining elsewhere? All this is happening against a background of a higher ratio of trade with other EEC member States.

Mr. Meacher: There has been an improvement. Whether it can be described as more than marginal is a matter of opinion. The size of our trade deficit with the EEC is still about £2 billion a year and there must be a considerable improvement in that figure.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Minister agree that invisible exports play a very important part in our trade balance with the EEC and with other countries? Does he also agree that supervision of the securities market and other City institutions might play a large part in the balance? Should we not have a debate in the House on new methods of supervising the securities market and other City institutions before any agreement finally is reached between the Department of Trade and the Governor of the Bank of England?

Mr. Meacher: The matter of a debate is for the Leader of the House. This issue is certainly an important factor in trade with the EEC and it is worth worrying about that over the past four years a surplus on invisible trade with the EEC of £374 million has turned into a deficit of £160 million.

Mr. Hooley: Will the Minister agree that in so far as these deficits occur—running at £1½ billion on manufactures with other EEC countries—we are using North Sea oil revenues to subsidise and


develop the manufacturing industries of our major competitors?

Mr. Meacher: It would be foolish to believe that if this country were to leave the EEC tomorrow this large deficit would disappear. Any change would be a matter for conjecture. We also have a large deficit with the rest of the world—£1·6 billion last year. My hon. Friend's argument would apply to that as well.

Hotel Accommodation

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied that hotel accommodation outside London will be adequate for the number of overseas visitors anticipated during the current year.

Mr. Meacher: Yes, Sir. According to the latest figures from the national tourist boards, an average of one hotel bed in two outside London was empty in the first eight months of last year.

Mr. Sainsbury: I note the Minister's apparent satisfaction. Is he aware that there is growing concern in the hotel industry that the shortage of hotel accommodation in and out of London will soon prove a restriction on tourism? In certain areas, including my constituency, hotels provide a major source of employment. The United Kingdom is alone in the EEC in not providing industrial building allowances or the equivalent for hotel building. There is considerable suffering in these areas from that failure. When will the Government stop discouraging the expansion of hotel accommodation?

Mr. Meacher: The Government in no way discourage the expansion of hotel development. The hotel development incentive scheme is a major factor in that respect. On the matter of capital allowances for hotel building, in the Finance Bill debates last year the Minister of State indicated that Treasury Ministers believed that on equity grounds the case was unanswerable. They said that there was no case in equity for treating commercial buildings differently from industrial buildings. This is a matter of financial priorities. Therefore, it is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Heffer: On Merseyside, and particularly in Liverpool, there is a lot of

good hotel accommodation available. Will the Minister do his best to ensure that as far as possible tourists are directed to Liverpool? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said "as far as possible". Is he aware that we consider Liverpool to be the Athens of the North? It is a fine artistic and cultural centre and the people are extremely friendly. Will the Minister take all these points into accouunt when he is discussing the subject of hotel accommodation and questions involving tourists coming to this country?

Mr. Meacher: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State entirely agrees with him, except that he wishes that tourists could be directed to Birkenhead. On the question of encouraging tourists into the development area to which he refers, under Section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 project assistance is confined to the development areas. To that extent, we are already increasingly encouraging tourists into these areas. We shall continue to do so.

Japan (Import Duties)

Mr. Sims: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further representations he proposes to make to the Japanese Government concerning the level of import duties on United Kingdom products.

Mr. Giles Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further representations he proposes to make to the Japanese Government concerning the level of import duties on United Kingdom products.

Mr. Dell: I take every opportunity of making representations to the Japanese Government about barriers to imports, including import duties. Negotiations on these matters are now taking place in the context of the multilateral trade negotiations.

Mr. Sims: Is the Secretary of State aware that the modest reduction in duty announced by the Japanese Government just before Christmas has been widely welcomed by all those who want to increase trade with Japan? However, there has been considerable disappointment about the fact that the reduction on biscuits and confectionery did not materialise. Does he agree that duty


rates of 35 per cent. and 40 per cent. are not conducive to increasing trade in these commodities? Will he make the strongest possible representations to the Japanese Government on this point?

Mr. Dell: I agree entirely. I hope that the modest reduction in the duty on whisky will help, and I agree that it was disappointing that nothing was done about confectionery and biscuits. We shall press this matter hard in the multilateral trade negotiations.

Mr. Shaw: Will the Secretary of State recognise that, in view of the enormous balance of trade surplus of the Japanese, the reductions offered so far are minimal? He should be able to persuade the Japanese Government to make a meaningful reduction, particularly on the heavy duty lines such as biscuits and confectionery.

Mr. Dell: I agree entirely. The position created by the Japanese surplus is very serious. I shall press this matter upon the Japanese Government and Mr. Ushiba in discussions in this country, Europe and the United States, and I hope that they will take the necessary action to rectify the position.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is it not true that import duties and other trade restrictions have been used for years by Japan and other countries to protect and develop home industries? Is it not time that we adopted similar measures?

Mr. Dell: As a matter of fact—this is part of the problem—the difficulty in Japan is not just a matter of import duties or formal tariff barriers or non-tariff harriers. The difficulty is the attitude towards purchasing, which has had the effect of helping to build up Japanese industry and its export capacity. It is no use imagining that protective policies necessarily create viable industries. Unfortunately, there are too many examples of the contrary in this country—industries that have had protection but have not benefited.

Mr. Dalyell: In my right hon. Friend's discussions with Mr. Ushiba, was anything said about quartz crystals?

Mr. Dell: I did not mention that industry, nor did Mr. Ushiba, in my discussions with him.

Cutlery Imports

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will now introduce surveillance licensing of imports of cutlery.

Mr. Meacher: I am considering this.

Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that his interest in and concern for the cutlery industry is much appreciated in Sheffield? What progress is being made with the special study of the industry that the Government requested and in which the industry is co-operating?

Mr. Meacher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his expressions about my concern for the industry, which is strong. I hope to make an announcement very soon about surveillance licensing, but we have to clear the matter with the EEC Commission first. On the question of the study, we are doing our best to ensure completion of the necessary documentation by the industry, and we in the Department will ensure that this is processed quickly so that we are in a position quickly to take firm decisions.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Is it not a fact that there has been a severe contraction of the cutlery industry mainly based on Sheffield? Is not this as much a European problem as it is a British and a Sheffield problem'? What contacts is the Minister having with the EEC? Is not the culprit still South Korea and its cheap stainless steel flatware?

Mr. Meacher: We have made an application to the EEC Commission in respect of temporary import restraints for stainless steel tableware where the level of imports is more than 80 per cent. The Commission was not willing to proceed, first because some member States were removing their traditional quotas as part of the Community's offer to the multilateral trade negotiations; secondly, because a number of United Kingdom manufacturers are themselves substantial importers of cutlery; and, thirdly, because the import levels are already so high and there is no evidence that the industry could provide for the lower end of the market.

Mrs. Wise: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is possible to comb whole towns in this country and not be able to buy a


British knife, fork or spoon but be faced with imports from France, Korea and Hong Kong? Will my hon. Friend expose those United Kingdom manufacturers who are household names and who are engaging in the import of cutlery which British people may well be buying oblivious of the fact that they are competing with home industries?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. There is very considerable concern about United Kingdom manufacturers who are damaging the prospects for the home industry by substantial imports. Their name is well known. I am glad to say that the industry is beginning to organise against them and in defence of the indigenous home industry.

Air Services (United Kingdom— Australia)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what recent discussions on air services between the United Kingdom and Australia have taken place at ministerial level.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I held discussions on air services, among other things, with Mr. Peter Nixon, the Australian Minister of Transport, on 23rd January during his visit to this country.

Mr. McCrindle: Is it correct that the plans recently submitted by Qantas and British Airways for a further reduction in the minimum fare between Britain and Australia are quite likely to be introduced shortly but that the application by Laker Airways for even lower fares is likely to be postponed indefinitely? As the Department of Trade is now a self-confessed fan of Freddie Laker, can the Minister take any steps in the reasonably near future towards encouraging Laker to start this service, for which there is a very sizeable potential market?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman has apparently misunderstood the situation. The Australian Government are currently involved in a civil aviation policy review, which will not be determined until the end of March. My understanding is that there will be no advance in the provision of services of either kind until the Australian Government have made up their minds on this issue. Mr. Laker's application to the Civil Aviation Authority

was adjourned sine die precisely in order to enable the lines of Australian policy to emerge.

Mr. Adley: Is not Singapore a vital part of the route to Australia for the new Concorde service? Just what steps are the Government taking to oppose the ridiculous moves by Malaysia to vent its spite on Singapore Airlines by preventing Singapore Airlines from flying Concorde between Singapore and London?

Mr. Davis: We are engaged in discussions and negotiations with the Malaysians. To try to hot up the situation along the lines the hon. Gentleman suggests would do nobody any good.

Industrial Democracy

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he now expects to complete his consultations prior to bringing forward proposals for an extension of industrial democracy.

Mr. Dell: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced at the meeting of the National Economic Development Council last week that he will be meeting both sides of industry to follow up the discussions that have already been held. The timing of our proposals will be influenced by the outcome of these further discussions, but they will not be unduly delayed.

Mr. Neubert: Why, when the Prime Minister constantly disowns the idea of confrontation, do the Government insist on their proposals for statutory industrial democracy in the face of implacable hostility from the Confederation of British Industry? Is it because the Government's attitude remains one of total deference to the trade union movement?

Mr. Dell: It is because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not wish to seek confrontation that he has taken upon himself this effort to see whether any sort of consensus is possible, and in that connection he will be meeting the CBI in approximately five minutes.

Mr. Gow: Does the Secretary of State agree that in any legislative proposals which may be introduced by the Government it is important to bear in mind the interests of those who are not members of trade unions as well as the interests of those who are members of trade


unions? In that connection, will he remember that the number of non-unionists in this country exceeds the number of union members by more than 1 million?

Mr. Dell: It is certainly necessary to bear in mind the interests of non-trade unionists.

Textile Industry

Mr. Shersby: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the recently promulgated European Community textile industry protection regulations and on the effects he estimates these will have on the United Kingdom industry in 1978.

Mr. Dell: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) on 10th January.

Mr. Shersby: Is the Secretary of State aware that the EEC is to be congratulated on the progress of the negotiations so far? Will he, however, consider the problem of imports of wool cloth from the Argentine, which is of grave concern to the wool textile industry?

Mr. Dell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulatory remarks. Imports from Argentina have been the subject of discussions between the industry and myself and my Department and, indeed, the Community. There is a trigger mechanism within the agreement which will help in this respect. However, I hope that the industry now takes the opportunity of investing and is not too concerned with minor problems that continue to arise.

Vietnam

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will consider long-term credits on favourable terms to Vietnam for the purchase of agricultural machinery from Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Meacher: ECGD is prepared to consider applications for cover for sales of agricultural machinery to Vietnam on normal commercial terms, though it will always consider matching exceptional terms offered by other credit insurers.

Mr. Allaun: Would not this provide jobs for our engineers? Is my hon. Friend aware that Vietnam also wants to buy machinery for mining and for chemical, engineering and other industries? Are we dragging our feet because of the American trade veto?

Mr. Meacher: We are not dragging our feet because of the American trade veto. Vietnam is a major market which has considerable long-term export potential but which is now in considerable difficulties because of reconstruction and the lack of hard currency. As I have said, we will match exceptional terms provided by other credit insurers. We will go further than that and we are prepared to consider use of the aid trade contingency fund—that is, using a small proportion of the bilateral aid programme to give higher priority to the commercial importance of developmentally sound projects where no aid allocation is available or where it has been fully used.

Mr. Nott: Is the Minister aware that the country will note the Government's enthusiasm for providing export credits to Vietnam and their ban on export credits to James Mackie of Belfast, which wishes to keep its employees employed?

Mr. Meacher: There are totally different considerations involved.

BILL PRESENTED

HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE AND HOUSING CORPORATION GUARANTEE

Mr. Secretary Shore, supported by Mr. Secretary Mason, Mr. Secretary Millan, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Joel Barnett and Mr. Reginald Freeson, presented (under Standing Order No. 91) (Procedure upon bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue) a Bill to authorise the use of public money for assisting first-time purchasers of house property, and for connected purposes; and to increase the financial limit governing the housing corporation's power to guarantee loans to housing associations and others; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

AFRICA (SOVIET POLICY)

3.30 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles Winchester): I beg to move,
That this House regrets the failure of Her Majesty's Government to recognise the threat to world peace posed by Soviet adventurism in Africa.
I am glad to have the opportunity to debate this question, because it probably has more bearing on the eventual survival of Britain and the West than many of the internal domestic issues that we discuss in this House day after day and night after night. If I had chosen "The Pencourt File" for debate today, these green Benches would have been packed to capacity.
I should like to start by outlining the facts about Soviet adventurism and how it threatens the interests of Britain and of her allies. I shall next discuss what could constructively be done to offset some of these Soviet activities and why I believe that the present Government's policies are at best feeble and misguided and at worst disastrously wrong. But I hope that it will be a constructive debate and not a slanging match. I agree with the saying that one should attack the measures and not the men.
I have here some maps which I shall ask to be placed on the Table. I never like navigating without a chart. When we look at the map, the most surprising fact that we see is the vast extent of the total effort that the Soviet Union is deploying. There is hardly any part of Africa in which the Soviet has not got its fingers in the pie, stirring up trouble wherever it can. As Marxist-Leninists, the Russians will take advantage of any revolutionary opportunity that comes along, even if they did not create it.
Starting in, for instance, the Horn of Africa, which is the latest trouble spot, we see a huge airlift of weapons sent to Ethiopia for use against Somalia and the deployment of both Cuban troops and Russian technicians. There must be a lesson to be learnt here, by Somalia at least, about the reliability of the Soviets as allies. Only this morning we read a headline saying that "Russian generals lead Ethiopians against Somalis".
If the Soviets regain possession of Berbera—and they are already consoli

dated in Aden—they will in effect be able to sell tickets for the Suez Canal, as well as being able to reach out and have very effective control of the entrance to the Persian Gulf.
In Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia, Soviet arms are being supplied in massive quantities for training and the equipment of terrorists to operate in Rhodesia.
In Angola, the Marxist MPLA has gained a complete stranglehold with the help of vast Soviet armaments. Angola was conquered by a 12,000-man Cuban force sent in to do the Russians' dirty work for them. It was a fully equipped expeditionary force including paratroops, artillery with truck-mounted rocket launchers, tank battalions and anti-aircraft units. It also included political police units. The Cubans must now be recognised as the Soviet Union's foreign legion. Not a finger was lifted in the West to stop this invasion.
In addition to the Soviet naval expansion, the Soviet merchant fleet has been growing at a rapid rate. In the past five years it has added 5 million tons to its fleet.
Direct Aeroflot air routes have been established from Moscow to Conakry, Accra, Luanda and Maputo. By these means, weapons, equipment, instructors and political agents are being poured into Africa in an endless stream. Similarly, guerrillas and agents are being taken to Russia and other Soviet bloc countries for intensive courses in terrorism, sabotage, bomb-making and the rest of the sinister paraphernalia of the politics of violence. Terrorists in Africa, as elsewhere in the world, know that they can look to Moscow for the weapons and the know-how of violence.
Apart from these military adventures, undertaken either directly or by proxy, tactics of subversion and the support of so-called liberation movements are being actively pursued throughout the African continent. One in three of the official representatives in 35 African countries is a member of the KGB or the GRU, the military intelligence corps.
Moscow envisages a Marxist revolutionary regime ultimately emerging in Rhodesia. Robert Mugabe, the leader of the "Zimbabwe People's Army"—I speak in inverted commas—talks of
consolidating our gains by the gun.


Indeed, Soviet doctrine and propaganda make no secret of Moscow's ambition to set up a constellation, right across the continent, of pro-Soviet Marxists States in black Africa, thus opening the way for the final armed struggle, as they say, and the elimination of the present rulers and all Western influence in the Republic of South Africa.
A number of major threats to Britain and to the West arise from this Soviet strategy. The first is the risk of denial of raw materials. The Soviet casts greedy eyes on the immense mineral wealth of Southern Africa, which includes chrome, gold and industrial diamonds. It is important to make a specific point about these minerals, that they are essential for our Western advanced technology in peacetime just as much as in war. I am not talking only about war.
Already, Soviet influence in Mozambique and Angola could deny mineral exports to Western countries. The Soviets are already in a position to dictate to landlocked Malawi, Zambia and Zaire by throttling their exports.
The second major threat is the stategic threat to Western shipping on the Cape route, and in particular the oil from the Persian Gulf to Britain, Western Europe and America. About 24,000 ocean ships pass to and fro round the Cape each year. That is one every 20 minutes day and night, round the clock.
The specific threat is of the denial to the West of a large part of its supplies of uranium—

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman rather like his illustrious predecessor, Nelson, in that he can see the Soviet naval threat but has a blind eye for the American Navy? I do not like either, but is it not a fact that there are 18 American aircraft carriers as against only one such Soviet vessel?

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am very flattered to be compared with Admiral Lord Nelson. The hon. Gentleman is like so many radicals. He has both his feet planted firmly in mid-air.
I was saying that the very specific threat is the denial to the West of a large part of its supplies of uranium. In today's world energy is the all-important economic factor. It clearly makes sense from

the Soviet point of view to impede the development of nuclear generating stations in the West, particularly as it is already in a position to throttle the alternative oil supply routes. Incidentally, while on the subject of uranium, this explains another manifestation of Soviet tactics close to home—the way Soviet sympathisers and their dupes in the West lose no opportunity to protest against nuclear power developments, topically even Wind-scale.
What all these threats in sum amount to is that a loss of Western control over the Cape sea route and the Indian Ocean would cut the world vertically in half and would give Russia complete hegemony over the three main continents—I exclude China—Europe, Asia and Africa. That is the scale of the possibilities we are discussing.
I come to the nitty gritty. Faced with these threats, what should British policy be? I want to be as constructive as possible and not just to criticise for criticism's sake, although, my God, there will be plenty to criticise. I suggest that there are three specific lines of policy which could be followed and which must be followed if we in the West are to avoid finding ourselves completely at the mercy of the Soviet rulers within the space of a few years without, necessarily, any war being fought.
The first thing we must do is to recognise the threats to peace and the extent of them and explain them to the public. It is a remarkable thing but I do not think that there has been a foreign affairs debate in this House for many months. We are always looking inwards. We are like a giant Welfare State Buddha sitting gazing at our own navel. Surely a valid, genuine and understandable threat is the only justification for any democratic country incurring expenditure on foreign policy. I see that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) has left the Chamber. I should have liked to make that point to him.
All too easily the relative ease and comfort of life in the West anaesthetises public opinion and prevents it from noticing the wounds being inflicted upon it. There have been one or two very good BBC programmes recently on this subject. But either the Government do not know the facts, because their intelligence


services have been run down, or else they know the facts and are concealing them from the public. One of those propositions must be true. I wonder which it is. Perhaps the Minister can deal with the point when he replies.
In either case it is disgracefully wrong to try to kick all of this under the carpet and go on with a series of massive defence cuts. Similarly, it is grotesque for the Government even to contemplate a reduction in our representation overseas. If the shop is in a shaky way financially, one does not withdraw goods from the window or leave only the dusty ones on display.
Secondly, I believe that we must recognise that the threat from Soviet adventurism is not confined to the central front of Europe. If you or I, Mr. Speaker, were sitting in the Kremlin—and it is not scenario I can visualise very easily—and if we decided to have a go at the West, surely the last thing we would do would be to send great armies marching—left! right!—headlong into the plains of Europe, with snow all over their boots. This could result only in a nuclear Armageddon. Instead, being cunning people, we should try feints and probing attacks in places where the West is weakest.
It is arguable that the massive build-up of Soviet armies, tanks and aircraft against NATO in Europe may be no more than a gigantic deception plan, designed to keep NATO's flimsy forces concentrated where they will be least effective. It is on the flanks that NATO is weakest, and in this context the true southern flank of NATO is the continent of Africa and the sea routes around it.

Mr. Stanley Newens: I am following carefully the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Will he confirm that it would be wrong for the West, in these circumstances, to reinforce in Europe? Does that mean that the argument that we should spend additional resources on reinforcing Europe—which I hear advanced from the Tory Benches—is not one to which he subscribes?

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: That is an interesting point. I am about to deal with it. The hon. Gentleman may be rather surprised if he will bear with me and listen to what I have to say. I am making the point that the fundamental

error of British policy over the last decade has been the withdrawal from east of Suez and the Cape route. For this I believe one man is primarily responsible, and that is the current Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is an irony of fate that the right hon. Gentleman has now moved to a position where he has his hands on the financial strings which he has been pulling around the throat of the Armed Forces like an assassin's cord. The present Ministers in the Ministry of Defence are only little fish flapping around in the shallow waters after the tide has gone out.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: It is important that we should get the record straight here. It is a fact that my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, formerly the Secretary of State for Defence, was against the withdrawal from east of Suez and gave way only to the Cabinet majority.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: If the right hon. Gentleman was against it, he showed his resistance in a very odd way, for instance, by making a speech in Canberra in February 1967 saying that we did intend to remain a world Power, in the military sense, for the benefit of the audience there and then coming straight home and scrapping the entire aircraft carrier programme. The Government no longer even pretend to be able to do anything to protect the British merchant shipping fleet anywhere outside the limits of the NATO area. If that is wrong I would be terribly grateful to hear the Minister tell me so.
Thirdly, we must admit that to retrieve anything from the complete impotence into which we have descended will be a major task. It will involve, first of all, recognition of the fact that military and political threats to the Alliance are not confined to the NATO area. Had NATO been able to make even a modest commitment of arms and expertise to countering the revolutionary forces in Southern Africa in the 'sixties and 'seventies, Mozambique and Angola would still be under Western control. The flabby response of the Western Powers to this Soviet challenge in Africa is even more perturbing than the Marxist challenge itself. Have we heard any word about this from the Government? Not a word. All we have had has been instant and


craven recognition of the regime in Angola, trailing along behind events.
Fourthly, we must drastically reassess our position in NATO. We should progressively withdraw from our national strategy of keeping a large standing army in Germany. Instead we should substitute as our contribution to NATO a much larger maritime capability. I would call this the "blue water" school of thought. I hope that the House will acquit me of speaking with a one-Service voice in this matter. Historically, a Continental army has not always proved to be the best strategy for Britain, whereas looking to the future it is clear that Soviet ambitions have been built up year after year on the basis of a vastly increasing presence at sea, in terms of naval forces, merchant shipping, oceanic fishing fleets and hydro-graphic exploration vessels.
Having said this, I accept that the change to the policy which I am personally advocating is one which could be undertaken only step by step in agreement with our allies, particularly Germany. At present the Royal Navy, like the other forces, has been cut to the bone—or, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, below the bone. We can do nothing about this in our present posture.
Fifthly, I agree that the problem we are discussing today is primarily not military but political. The trouble with debates of this sort is that in due course one always tends to escalate it into a situation where a shooting war has broken out. I do not believe that that will happen. But it is very difficult to separate the military and the political aspects, for when we are dealing with an adversary who believes that all power flows out of the barrel of a gun, it is not sufficient just to equip ourselves with kid gloves. The object of all defence policy nowadays must be the prevention of war, but this cannot be achieved empty-handed.
I now turn to some political aspects, many of which are very topical today. Fundamentally, I do not accept the premise that a race war is inevitable in Africa. I take the view that there is nothing for the races to fight about in the first place, and that a multi-racial society is perfectly possible. Unfortunately, the present Government, if they are to be judged by the policies of the Foreign Secretary, seem to take the other view.

In the very few months that he has been Foreign Secretary—a very high position—the right hon. Gentleman has gained the reputation right round the world of believing that in Africa only black is beautiful. Certainly his book "The Politics of Defence" does nothing to dispel the fears of those who are worried about his objectivity in this matter.
I put it to the House that it would be much more constructive, and much more in accordance with British influence, to recognise that the astonishing progress made in Africa during the last 100 years has been essentially a joint effort between black and white, and that the best future lies along that same path. On this basis, I deplore the Labour Government's handling of the whole Rhodesia issue, and also their policy towards the Republic of South Africa.
We who live in Europe all too often lack any basic understanding of the realities of life on the African continent. Africa, Mr. Speaker, is not Hampstead. By all means progressively bring Africans into the political life of their country, but of 49 independent nations in Africa, 29 have one-party civilian Governments and 15 are ruled by the military. That is out of only 49. Therefore it is understandable if South Africa, for example, should ask which African country it is being asked to emulate.
Next, there is the danger that the Foreign Secretary's words, spoken on his way to Moscow, that there is no difference between British and Soviet aims in Rhodesia, may, under the present Government, be all too true. That worries me a great deal, for the Anglo-American plan, if implemented as it now stands, would surely produce only chaos, upon which Soviet policy thrives. If the guerrilla forces—which the right hon. Gentleman promotes to the status of liberation armies—were to be made responsible for interim law and order, rivalries would develop and intimidation would be such that no meaningful elections or referendum could be held. Further, if Lord Carver were to be installed as commissioner, he would need an efficient bodyguard or palace guard, which I think would have to consist of British troops. Soon the risk of his being threatened—or even just debagged—would involve the need for more troops. Thus I think that the Anglo-American


plan would lead to an escalating commitment for British troops, and I wonder whether this is something which the present British Government would like to see.
Unfortunately, to the extent that Russia's aim is to eliminate the white man, the Foreign Secretary's commitment to coexistence between the races in Africa is not sufficiently explicit. If examples are needed, we have last week's hobnobbing with Messrs. Nkomo and Mugabe in Malta. We have also the suspicions, very widely held, that it was a telephone call from the Foreign Office to Bishop Muzorewa which went close to sabotaging the talks in Salisbury. We have the right hon. Member the Minister of State for Overseas Development handing millions of pounds to Marxist Mozambique. We have double standards in the United Nations, which did not mind about elections in Angola but insists on having them in Namibia. We have the British representative at the United Nations supporting the arms embargo against South Africa.
This arms embargo must be a world record for absurdity and cynicism. Whatever one thinks of South Africa's internal policy, how can it possibly be said that frigates, submarines or maritime reconnaissance aircraft can have any bearing on internal policies? There are not even any navigable rivers in which these vessels could operate. Yet these ships, aircraft and submarines are the very items which are essential for keeping track of Soviet movements at sea, and in the last resort they are what is needed for protecting our own British trade routes. Surely Western nations are under no obligation to commit suicide by denying themselves access to what is essential for their own security.
Next, in what possible way can British interests have been served by the abrogation of the Simonstown Agreement? In fact, the agreement as it stood was enormously to the benefit of Britain and the free world as a whole. It laid down a command structure for war, and provided port facilities for our navies. It provided a very useful outlet for our exports of naval ships and equipment—and the shipbuilding industry is on its knees. It was a source of vital intelligence material con

cerning Soviet activities at sea. Why is it that the Government subsidise the building of ships for Poland—and now even for Vietnam—but apparently cannot even deliver ships for the Royal Navy? What sort of myopia is that?
Having been in naval intelligence myself, I will not seek this afternoon to embarrass the Government by asking whether their intelligence source from the Cape is still in use and whether a secure on-line cypher system is in operation between London and Simonstown. I will content myself by saying that if it is not, it ought to be in use. I am suspicious about this, because the Labour Government were willing to play ducks and drakes with all the advantages of the Simonstown Agreement in order to satisfy their own ideological obsessions or, more accurately, the ideological obsessions of the Tribune Group, by whose grace they stay in power.
One thing is certain, and that is that in dealing with tough and determined people such as the South African Government—we can even call them stubborn people—ostracism will never be a successful policy.
Britain should surely seek to point out to all the newly independent African States that Soviet influence will lead inevitably to the loss of their own newfound and valued freedom, as surely as sparks fly upwards.
To sum up, one sees today intense Soviet activity deployed against the interests of the West in almost every part of the vast African continent. Britain cannot be expected to offset this single-handed, of course. But my argument is that the Labour Government's policy shows no realisation whatsoever of the threat, no effective action to offset this Soviet influence, and that, in so far as they have a coherent policy at all, it seems to be one which can only tempt the Soviet to go in for further adventures. Such an attitude is part of a doomsday scenario for Western civilisation.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: The whole House holds the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) in such esteem, and listens to him with such affection that, although we may not accept what he tells us, nevertheless we enjoy


listening to him. I mean that quite sincerely. I do not wish, therefore, to attempt a tour d'horizon or to follow him on the world venture on which he has taken us this afternoon.
I know the hon. and gallant Gentleman's fears, but I want to suggest this to him. Every year, at the conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, whether it is held in Colombo, New Delhi or elsewhere, in my recollection the first item on the agenda is "Indian Ocean-zone of peace." I am as happy as the hon. and gallant Gentleman—I think that he is happy today—at any time to attack the Soviet Union for its bad behaviour using naval bases in Aden or in Berbera. He will be pleased to know that the Somalis asked the Russians to leave Berbera. I do not know how long it is since the hon. and gallant Gentleman was there.
Also, like my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), I think that we can pick on the Americans, too, where they are in former bases of ours in the Persian Gulf such as Bahrain, with "Kittiwake" or any other naval vessels. However, today we are looking at the exploits—if that is the term—and the behaviour of the USSR in the continent of Africa.
I begin at once by saying that I shall be attacking the Soviet Union and its behaviour there in one part, without wandering all over the place—the Horn of Africa. I shall not comment any longer on what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said about the future of Britain. It was a lot of poppycock that he talked about the future survival of my society and his society in the face of the behaviour of the Soviet Union.
I ask what the Soviet Union is doing in Africa, and particularly in the Horn of Africa. Why should the Russians be there at all? I would have no objection to them being there if, like another world super-State with Communist ideology, China, they were there for a particular purpose. If I go about Africa, I find the Chinese building dams, highways, the Tan-Zam line and dealing with aquatic farming and whatever one cares to mention; to add some cubits of stature to the status of the local black indigenous people. But the Soviet Union does not do that.
In Mogadishu I found that flying from Aden to Addis Ababa with supplies are over 200 aeroplanes. I think that figure is about correct. The Christian Science Monitor talks about 225 aeroplanes. The Mig's and tanks are uncrated within the Peoples Democratic Soviet Republic of Yemen and they are flown from there into Addis, Duridawah and elsewhere.
I do not want to go into wider spheres of oil, detente and so on, least of all the Nile waters. Whoever holds Addis and the old Abyssinia controls the Nile waters in Egypt and the Sudan to the north.
Let me look in some detail at Soviet behaviour in the Somali-Ethiopian war, in which I have been slightly involved. I hope to be fair, and certainly I shall be factual, as I always hope to be. What is the Soviet Union doing on the battlefield? I do not mind the Soviet Union or the Chinese being in Africa if they are there to build dams, highways and so on. But I do not want Cubans or Russians in an African war—any more than I want my people in one. If the white imperialists or settlers have got themselves out—and they are being got out by the thousands, and I hope quicker than sometimes is the case in Rhodesia and elsewhere—the Soviets should stay out like any other white European imperialist power they are getting themselves in, and aiding a fellow Marxist State. Mengistu's misdeeds there are bad as, if not worse than, those of Amin in Kampala. I say that with care and reflection.
Are the Soviets testing their long-distance capability for a war at a distance, or merely putting on an act to convince black African States that they had better keep in line and not do too much in the Organisation of African Unity in talking about this? I am shocked by the behaviour of the Good Services Commission, or any other committee of the OAU, by saying nothing or very little about what is happening in the Horn. Why are they so quiet? The OAU—I know many people in it—has plenty to say about ourselves in Southern Africa or elsewhere, but it has nothing to say about the Horn of Africa.
The Soviet navy has been shelling Massowa. It is a fact of life that there are between a minimum of 3,000 and a maximum of 6,000 Cubans or Russians


in Ethiopia. No one has denied that. It is also a fact of life that over 200 aircraft have been flying out of Aden.
I have long contacts with Somalia. I openly declare my association. I am in sympathy with the Somali people because they have had such a bad deal from ourselves in the past, and they do not want an equally bad or a worse deal from Eastern Europe. I was in Jijiga soon after the 3rd Division of the Ethiopians fled.
The Soviets claim that they have a legalistic basis for being in Ethiopia in that they are going to the aid of a State that has been attacked—in this case, by Somalia. On the surface, it has a very plausible ring indeed, particularly since the OAU is scared to death of these disputes coming before its committees.
What has been the actual course of events in the Horn of Africa? The Somali gained their independence in 1961. The North and the South joined together—Hargeisa and Mogadishu—after long decades of neglect by ourselves in the North and by the Italians in the South. They were immediately wooed by the Soviet Union. The Soviets began pumping in arms. Why? They hoped to fashion for themselves—and they did so in the event—a major naval base on the Red Sea and, of course, a political outpost in Africa at that time. No doubt the Kremlin has always looked south. In this case the Soviets were looking for a stepping stone into Ethiopia, but of course, the Americans were there. I make no more comment about the Americans than to say that they have literally spent over the years almost as much as the Marshall Plan by pumping money into Ethiopia.
The Marxist clique then took over Addis. Mengistu and others are now in power. Moscow, cold bloodedly and calculatedly, then looked at the map and said that Addis was a better centre than Mogadishu for fanning out and moving into other States—Yemen, Sudan, Egypt, Uganda and Kenya; whichever neighbouring State one cares to mention.
Anyone who disagrees about that had better look at a map. Whatever map one looks at—a phrase used by the hon. and gallant Gentleman—the atlas will tell one that Mogadishu was then left alone.
Now I come to the Ogaden. It is overwhelmingly Somali—99 per cent. The Ethiopians took nothing into it and left nothing behind them. The Somali there are a 100 per cent. ethnic type. They have a nomadic way of life which no one else has. They have their own language and faith. I say that the Somali are the only nation State in Africa. This was the homeland of the Somali, of their poets and past leaders, including the so-called Mad Mullah. He was not mad at all. He was almost as important as General Von Lettow who led us a dance in the Tanganyika bush in the First World War. His statue, in marble, is on the top of a hill—near Parliament in Mogadishu. To our Scots colleagues from north of the Tweed, he was a Somali Bonny Prince Charlie, but he was more successful.

Mr. Newens: While not for one moment attempting to justify the complete disregard of human rights by the Mengistu Government, I am anxious that my hon. Friend should make clear whether he is justifying the invasion of the Ogaden by the Somalis. Does he not agree that if he once justifies this, Kenya and many other areas Djibouti as well, could equally be claimed by Somalia, and this principle itself could be used to justify complete anarchy in Africa as a whole? Will not he agree that at Harar there are other people within the Ogaden who are not Somali in their origin?

Mr. Johnson: That is a very fair and honest question which is typical of my old colleague. I accept what he is saying. Despite the fact that for a century or more there has been the Western Somali Liberation Force, there is not a puppet government in Jijiga at the moment. Legalistically there is no doubt that the Somalis went over the line on the map. However, without being too long-winded I want to say that the OAU and the United Nations should have dealt with this dispute. I ask my own Government whether they will take this matter to the United Nations and see whether a settlement can be reached at international level.
Emperor Menelik in the 1890s carved up the whole area with white imperialists—with ourselves, the Italians and the French. Coming on to more modern times, in 1954 many hon. Members of this House were stating that the carve


up of the Haud in Western Somalia was a most unfair settlement. Somalia has always had a bad deal at the hands of both white and black imperialists. Some time, sooner or later, the OAU must accept that the lines left on a map by the white man cannot remain for 100, 200 or more years. At some time, sooner rather than later, we must sit down and look at this problem.
This is not a boundary dispute in the sense that other boundary disputes in Africa are. Ogaden is unique, There is no other place like it in Africa. On that basis alone I believe that the OAU has funked its task by not coming to a decision about it. I hope that my own Government will take the matter to the United Nations so that sooner or later a decision will be made. I do not know why the OAU is so pusillanimous about this. It is an area which it should consider bearing in mind all the factors involved.
I know what my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) is saying. I know that the whole of Africa would be on the slide if we were to accept all the claims based on fiction, fantasy or disputed fact. Of course, there are dozens of cases where the white man went to Africa and simply laid down lines on a map. We have left that behind us. But if we are to start repairing the damage let us start with a good case. I defy any hon. Member to tell me of other cases in Africa where there is such a precedent.

Mr. Jim Spicer: I have listened with great attention to the hon. Gentleman. I have never heard anyone in this House speak with such authority. My only knowledge lies in the fact that I happened to be at Mogadishu during the riots of 1948 when the Somali people were moving towards independence. Will the hon. Gentleman move forward in time and talk about the problems of Eritrea? He has talked about the bloodiness of the regime in Addis Ababa.
If we now stand back and allow Addis Ababa to re-establish control in Eritrea, are we not handing over the Arab people to a Soviet-Marxist regime which will destroy those people totally? Do not those people fall into the same category as the people of Ogaden? I believe that the people of Eritrea were dealt with by us in exactly the same way as the people

of Ogaden. They were pawns on a map who were allowed to go to Addis Ababa because it suited us at the time. Irrespective of which Government is now in power, is it not now the time for us to stop this happening?

Mr. Johnson: With respect, I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's question was. I never talk about a place or about a people that I have never been to or met, otherwise no one would believe what I was saying. I have never known a territory or a people where there has been such affection, intimacy and loyalty between us as the Somalis. That is why I speak as I do. That is why I want to put my small hammer on a nail somewhere. I hope that the Minister will answer some of my comments at the end of the debate.
I want to come on to the future and ask what will happen. Arms are pouring in from Aden. They are going to one side. I was in Mogadishu in October and had talks with the Head of State, President Seyed Barre, Brigadier Suleiman, an old Sandhurst man who was Number Two, Mr. Samatar the Minister of Defence, and others. I listened to them all. The one thing that emerged—I give this message to the House—is that Somalia will go down unless it gets help. There are no bones about that. Somalia is getting some help with the oil money of Saudi and Kuwait and elsewhere.
I do not want this dispute to escalate, because the more escalation there is, the more people are killed. At this moment I completely ignore—which I should not—Eritrea. I do not know that area. I have not been there and, therefore, I cannot talk about it. I am talking about the Somalis.
I know that they cannot stand up and fight week after week and month after month. If the Soviet-Ethiopian offensive does turn the scales, as I believe it will, will Ethiopia stop at the border? It is a big temptation for a country to go on against its heriditary enemies. This is not only a war about a border, it is also a Jihad—because it is between eastern orthodox Christians and Muslims, whom the Christians fear.

Mr. Patrick Wall: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Russians, who are helping Ethiopia, probably have the objective of getting back


into Berbera and that it is most unlikely that they will stop on the frontier?

Mr. Johnson: It is my belief that the Somalis will not allow the Russians into Berbera or anywhere else. They will fight to the end. If the Soviet-Ethiopian-Cuban forces cut through at Tug Wajale and go east along a corridor to the coast and the Indian Ocean, they will take a lot of shifting. These people when on the move can advance 50 miles a day. Hargeisa—the Northern capital—is only 50 miles from the border. That is my fear. In those circumstances will anyone help them?
This issue must be taken to the United Nations. I can see no other place where a debate and discussion can take place between the parties concerned. We might be asked, too. I want this matter to be brought out into the open at the United Nations. Let us see what happens. If not, I believe that the Somalis will go down and that they will be the first skittle. That is the view that was put to me by the Head of State. They are the people who live there. I do not live there. But I am lucky enough to be able to visit the area. That is what they believe. They believe that General Nimeri at Khartoum is the next item on the agenda. I have colleagues here who know Sudan far better than I do and the internecine warfare which has been going on there in the last few years, although I was out there during the civil war.
The whole situation is on the slide. It has escalated. We talk of Vietnam in Asia, which was a bloody business, but we may have an equally bloody blow-up here in the Horn of Africa unless at international level we find some means of halting it.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. John Davies: We are very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) for giving us the opportunity to debate this important matter today. Equally, I am sure that the whole House is exceedingly grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) for his extraordinary knowledgeable and sensible contribution at this early stage of the debate, which will be of great help to the House.
It is a valuable debate because it brings together a great variety of rather fragmented discussions which we have had in the House over more than a year and which have picked out individual issues in Africa and looked at them in relation to Soviet involvement. This debate gives us an opportunity to look at the position as a whole and to see what lessons there are to learn from our experience in recent times.
I have to highlight the fact that the Opposition have a sense of some unease at the Government's attitude of mind to the whole problem. In his motion my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester refers to a threat to world peace. We have to realise that what has been going on both in Southern Africa and now in the Horn of Africa constitutes a growing threat which seems to be inadequately mirrored by the observations of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on the issues which have arisen.
I have in mind the right hon. Gentleman's pamphlet, "The Politics of Defence", which seems to have a particularly ambivalent attitude to the question of Soviet involvement in Africa. I think back to his comments in last year's foreign affairs debate, when he indicated that there was no objection to the Soviet Union involving itself in Southern Africa to the extent that it was involving itself. I remember the reported remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in Moscow last October which, although the right hon. Gentleman qualified them recently, still remain on the record as seeming to indicate that he considered that the Soviet Union's objectives in Southern Africa, especially in Rhodesia, were not dissimilar from our own.
It was a source of some relief to me the other day when, in answer to questions arising out of the Private Notice Question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), the Foreign Secretary made it clear that what was going on in the Horn of Africa could in no way be seen as any identity of interests with those of the United Kingdom.
The recent remarks that we have had from the right hon. Gentleman and from Ambassador Young following their Malta talks are not reassuring. They seem to indicate that no solution in Rhodesia would be acceptable unless it met with


the acceptance of the Soviet Union. That, again, is au unacceptable proposition to have put forward.
The facts of Soviet involvement in Africa are well known and I do not think to any degree disputed. So I do not believe that on either side of the House there is any argument about what has been happening. We have seen this as a progressive matter for quite a long period. It goes back to the late 1950s when the first involvement took place, largely at that time in West Africa, especially in Guinea. Then it expanded and progressed steadily from there, with relations with Libya and Egypt in North Africa—subsequently in Egypt sharply reversed—and then moving on to the dramatic events of Angola and the involvement of the Cubans as Russian emissaries in Angola.
We have become so accustomed to the presence of Cubans throughout the continent of Africa that we regard them almost as part of the indigenous scene. It is extraordinary to feel that these people, who have been imported literally in their thousands from across the Atlantic, are there increasing the degree of tension and subversion in the countries concerned. Then there were the affairs of Mozambique and the emergence of Frelimo, followed by the involvement of the Soviet Union with the Patriotic Front and the training and equipping of guerrilla forces.
Now, most recently, we have the escalation in a violent way of affairs in the Horn of Africa, to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West referred, culminating in the threat, of which so much is said at the moment, of a massive invasion by Ethiopia, and who knows where that may stop?
It is important to see all these various actions and interventions in the story of Africa in the context of the Soviet Union's overall strategy. It is not enough to imagine that they are incidental, individual involvements, each of which happens for separate reasons. That is not my belief. On the contrary, I believe that they are part of a grand strategy, and it is a grand strategy with which we on these Opposition Benches are deeply concerned.
It must be remembered that this involvement is not created by any natural

evolution which we can recognise. The Soviet Union makes every boast of the fact that from its point of view there is no residual inheritance from a colonial era. There is virtually no investment of any substantial kind. Certainly there is no real aid. Therefore, there is none of the normal characteristics of a rational relationship between a developed industrial State and a developing area. Yet there is this growing and progressively more and more important and disturbing activity.
Why is this so? I do not think that it is enough to put it down simply to a permanent wish to embarrass the West. At the same time, the extent of it is too great and the effort is too determined for it to be simply regarded as a feinting or probing tactic.
It is important to examine the causes as well as to assess the fact of this involvement, and it is to those causes that I address myself briefly today.
What are the possible explanations? First, it is argued that it is part of what is called the ideological struggle, and part of the embracing activity that the Soviet Union spells out constantly to try to bring the philosophy in which it ostensibly believes to the world at large and to try to inculcate that philosophy and to challenge the alternative philosophies which we hold dear, namely, the freedom and supremacy of the individual above the State. It is, therefore, perhaps part of the ideological struggle, and that serves in a useful way because it represents a counter-attack against the present charges of the infringement of human rights, and the Soviet Union explains that counterattack as the endeavour to liberate peoples who are ground down under the colonial yoke and all that we have become accustomed to hearing said. It is this propagation of an alternative philosophy which is characteristic of the ideological struggle on which the Soviet Union undoubtedly lays great importance.
That is the first possible explanation. Is it, secondly, part of the Soviet Union's sense of resistance to and resentment of encirclement? Do the Russians really believe that they are at risk from encirclement by countries which are hostile to them? Their history lends some reason to that concern. One must take the situation seriously, but is there any genuine belief that they are running a


risk of attack and aggression from the countries of the West? It seems to me almost impossible to believe that is part of their genuine concern in their involvement in African affairs.
It is a convenient argument if it is used to try to overwhelm or over-awe the West and to justify the immense amount of military expenditure required to do it. One has only to think in terms of the changes in military balance which have taken place even in the course of my parliamentary career to see that that factor has been sensational. We see today's strategic situation in a totally different relationship from the situation that existed seven or eight years ago. The conventional position in relation to central Europe has changed out of all knowledge and the maritime deployment of military expenditure—not just the military naval characteristic but the commercial naval characteristic—has changed fundamentally. Is the sense of encirclement being used as an argument to justify the immense military expenditure which undoubtedly is taking place?
Furthermore, one is led to wonder whether it is part of an aggressive intent, and whether the Soviet Union means to carry on live war against the Western world. It has not been my belief that that is the case, but it is possible to see the build-up of an aggressive position as a factor in seeking to preserve a certain stability of frontiers. We have seen that in the approach of the Soviet Union to the discussions in Helsinki and subsequently in Belgrade. We see it also, curiously, in Africa as a factor in the African appreciation of the immutability of frontiers and the dangers that are involved once the frontier pattern is thrown into change.
I believe that that aggressive intent is more indirect than direct. It is part of the undoubted continuing attitude of the Soviet Union—namely, to maintain an outward pressure on the countries with which it is faced. It allows them no reason at any time to believe that they are not in some way a threat.
It is possible—I personally attach great importance to this factor—that the whole of that tactic is part of the overall Soviet strategy seeks to buttress its own hierarchy. In autocratic hierarchies there is a kind

of self-perpetuating function in the need to maintain a given momentum of military activity and otherwise to create a feeling of the necessity to preserve a form of actual control.
When we examine the situation in the Soviet Union it is interesting to note that, despite certain changes that have taken place at the summit of the organisation, the persistence of the Soviet hierarchy demands conscious and permanent activity to maintain in the mind of the public the need for that hierarchy to exist and the dangers with which it is surrounded.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I am in broad agreement with the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. However, I am puzzled why he should restrict his analysis to hierarchies and bureaucracies in the Eastern Communist bloc. Is not that same kind of symptom true of organisations such as the Pentagon?

Mr. Davies: Yes, except for the fact that the Pentagon is the arm of a constitutionally elected organisation. Therefore, it is a fundamentally different situation. The point I am making is that this is not so in the Soviet Union. It is a body that is permanently required to maintain its position not at the risk of the normal workings of suffrage but because the guarantees which it offers to the country which it dominates are seen to be essential. That is the factor I seek to bring out.
It may be that the reasoning behind the deployment of this immense effort in Africa is partly to reinforce the Soviet negotiating stance. I believe that the Soviet Union was immensely perturbed and disturbed by the events in Cuba. When the Russians saw the threat to their lines of communication, and when they realised that their posture could be reversed by the strength of response, they took the view that the situation must not be allowed to recur. By and large, they have sought to build their system in such a way as to avoid their strategic lines of communication being upset when confronted with a degree of counter-threat which they cannot withstand.
There is perhaps a further factor in these developments in Africa involving the overall Soviet strategic position being defended by a great chain of supporting areas on the coasts of Africa. Soviet


efforts to avoid being at the end of a long line of communication constitute a permanent threat to the communications of the West.
One of the other factors involves the natural and mineral resources in Africa. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester referred to the fact that the West could be deprived of those resources. We must ask whether there is any need from the Soviet side to retain access to these resources. Hitherto we have always worked on the proposition that the Soviet Union has had the good fortune to be assured of total internal lines of communication.
Recently there have been a number of interesting reports emanating from the CIA on the oil resources of the Soviet Union. There is some reason to suspect that at least there will be a major gap in the access of petrol resources to the Soviet Union in the course of the late 1980s. Is there perhaps some concern to ensure that those resources will be able to be complemented from the Middle East without challenge from the West? One of the great guarantees in the post-war era or non-war era in the Middle East is the fact that the Soviet Union has been self-sufficient in raw materials, particularly petroleum. Were that not the case, the situation could become otherwise.
I believe that some part of all the ingredients I have mentioned are to be seen in the extraordinary development of Soviet interest in Africa. I consider that in each one of these facets—and I have enumerated six of them—there is a strand which justifies the Soviet Union in taking some action in Africa.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman advancing the thesis that Soviet aims and expansion in Africa are on the same basis as our own—namely, economic necessity and access to strategic raw materials?

Mr. Davies: Possibly it is one of the elements, but there are many others. I believe that some are quite different from considerations on our side, and it is evident that some are totally different because we have a strong historical link with Africa, whereas the Soviet Union has not.
I believe that the result is that Russian involvement is determined. I am sure

that a substantial part of that effort is not one with which we are identified. I refer to the continual need to buttress the autocratic domination of their own country and to demonstrate that they will insist on maintaining that autocracy.
The result of all that is that we have a permanent and pervasive challenge throughout the Western world. That arises from the causes I have outlined. It demonstrates itself in a variety of different ways not only in Africa but in terms of subversion in our area, the phenomenon of Euro-Communism and confrontation of every sort. It is something with which we have to be permanently concerned.
There are immense dangers of miscalculation in these affairs, which could easily give rise to an outburst of a sort that would become virtually irreversible. They are matters that we can at no time afford to take in any way easily, nor regard as being units of singular importance to us but of no general relevance to the whole of the basic strategy.
The proposition that I fear has been pursued by the Government—namely, one of relative indifference leaning towards appeasement—has no prospect of handling the problems involved. It is that to which my hon. and gallant Friend has addressed himself today, and I must say that I entirely adhere to his remarks. It may be that the Under-Secretary of State will give us cause for reassessing our view of the Government's stance, and if he does I shall be the first to be relieved, but to date our impression has remained the same—that the Government regard these matters as being best left alone or, if not left alone, met with appeasement rather than in any way firmly to be refuted.
I am deeply concerned that that is an indication of the Government's approach in a wider context and as part of a much wider picture. It has brought out a characteristic of the Government that we think is extremely dangerous for us all in the West. Therefore, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will have to listen with extreme care to the Minister's reply. The Minister has to upset a mass of relatively damning evidence to the contrary. Until he does so, we shall continue to feel that my hon. and gallant Friend's motion has much more than a simple justification.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: Until the normal peroration of the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), which is something that we all expect from the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman made a balanced speech that included little with which I want to quarrel. I quarrel with a certain amount of the phrases used by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). If we took the stance and attitude that the hon. and gallant Gentleman recommended, it would be the surest way for the United Kingdom and for the West generally quickly to lose all influence in Africa.
I shall concentrate my remarks on Mozambique. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), I do not like speaking in foreign affairs debates about places to which I have not been and which I do not know. I was in Mozambique shortly before Christmas. I was there immediately after the meeting of the Lomé Convention Assembly, which I attended as a delegate from this House to the European Parliament. I took a message to Mozambique from the President of the Lomé Convention, who is no sort of Communist. In fact, he is an Italian Christian Democrat. The President wished to make it clear to the Mozambique Government that the Convention remained open to them at any time that they would like to join it.
We hear so much from the Opposition Benches about Mozambique. I understand that on Wednesday there is to be a Ten-Minute Bill on the subject. When I arrived at Maputo I was told by the British Ambassador that I was the first British Member of Parliament to visit Mozambique since independence apart from the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State for Overseas Development. If people wish to talk about Mozambique and other countries, surely there is some obligation to try to understand exactly what is happening in them and not to rely on the propaganda that is issued by bodies that in the past have been shown to be financed by the CIA and other organisations in the United States of America, organisations that have no interest in putting out the truth and are merely fighting an East-West propaganda war.
It is true that there is a great deal of Russian influence in Mozambique. I do not think that anyone could possibly deny that. However, in talking to people there I found that the trappings of Russian influence were much more real than the actuality of Russian influence. The Russians have an incredible ability to lose friends and irritate people in Africa. There are two outstanding ways in which they have done that in Mozambique. First, there is the Aeroflot ticket fiddle. That has operated by selling cost-price cheap tickets in Mozambique soft currency, not using them and then selling them for hard currency outside Mozambique afterwards, thereby milking the Mozambique economy of precious hard currency.
The other way in which the Russians have deeply irritated the Mozambique Government is by signing a fishing agreement under which the Mozambique Government were meant to benefit from part of the catch but sending in trawlers that spent their time vacuum fishing and manufacturing fishmeal, providing little fish, if any, for the people of Mozambique. We have to remember that Russian influence in Africa is constantly being coloured by incidents of that sort that provide a balance to the overall picture.
The right hon. Member for Knutsford mentioned Euro-Communism. Some of us who have a great deal of contact, of necessity, with Euro-Communism in the European Assembly do not take the right hon. Gentleman's terrified view of this new phenomenon. It was the Italian Communists who consistently voted with the Christian Democrats to put in a Right-wing President of the European Assembly. They chose to tip the balance in that way. That is something to do with the historic compromise. The right hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I have a slightly different perspective of Euro-Communism.

Mr. John Davies: I reacted slightly against the adjective that the hon. Gentleman used. I have no greater terror of Euro-Communism than of Communism generally. I have much the same terror of both.

Mr. Price: President Machell and Marcelino dos Santos, his deputy in


Mozambique, take great pains to describe their brand of Communism as Afro Communism. It is possible to laugh at that and to say that it is no different from Soviet Communism. However, the contact of the West with the Mozambique Government has been immensely stronger with the Euro-Communists in Italy than with the Soviet Communists, and in term of informal contact there is a positive effort on the part of the Mozambique Government to identify what they call Afro-Communism and what is an independent idea of how they want to build up Mozambique, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Soviet idea of Communism. They may succeed or they may fail, but from the efforts that I saw being made it was apparent that they were trying hard to build up an independent stance within Africa and to gain adherence from other countries of Africa, not for Soviet Communism but with those who agree with them, that they are taking the right course in building up a society in Africa free of the grip of Western capitalism, which they see as equally dangerous to their true independence, as an independent country, as Soviet Communism.
It might be from the stories that we hear from the Opposition that Russian influence in Mozambique is the only influence, but nothing could be further from the truth. The aid which Britain pays into Mozambique is paltry compared with that paid in by Germany, Denmark and Sweden. Indeed, European countries within and without the EEC are tripping over each other to outbid each other in the aid which they give to Mozambique. It goes beyond that. Another substantial source of aid to Mozambique is the Republic of South Africa, which is investing a great deal of money in the Mozambique railway system because it knows which rail links it wants.
The most obvious fact about the Mozambique economy is that it is so tied in to South Africa that it is virtually untieable. Mozambique continues the system of accepting gold in payment for workers in the South African gold mines. It is a lucrative system which it has been decided to carry on and which has been inherited from colonial predecessors. Mozambique sends to South Africa almost the whole electricity output from the Cabora Bassa dam—not because it does

not need the electricity, but because it needs the hard currency. Mozambique accepts rights from South African Airways—something which only three other countries in Southern Africa—Swaziland, Botswana and Lesotho—do. The Belgian multinational Societé General operates there, too.
If one wishes to have a true picture of the economy in Mozambique, one must look at the great Western multinational conglornerates that have transferred money into it. There is a great deal of competition between the Western aid organisations—the United Nations aid organisations, and European aid organisations—and South African aid organisations, large European multinationals and the Soviet Union over who is to have the most influence in a country which is crucial to the economic and political future of Southern Africa.
I hope that in future debates we shall not hear such distortion of the picture that we have heard from the Opposition. In many ways the influence of the West over Mozambique is weak. When I participated in discussions about the role of the Left in Mozambique I had a hard time. There was little that I tried to defend, but if I did try to defend something I had a hard time. It is right that our influence should be so weak. For years the country was governed by a rotten dictatorship which did nothing to prepare it for independence. It is a wonder that the economy has survived so well, since the economy of Zaire did not survive when the Belgians walked out of the Congo with the speed with which the Portuguese left Mozambique.
I turn to the question of the Patriotic Front and Robert Mugabe. In foreign affairs the Opposition are best known for their realism. The realism about Rhodesia is that Mozambique is crucial to any future settlement. All Rhodesia's routes to the sea go through Mozambique. The only other way is by a long train journey to Tanzania or South Africa Robert Mugabe calls himself a Communist and he has close links with the Government in Mozambique. He rightly feels that as leader of one of the groups which has a political base outside Rhodesia and which has decided to fight from outside rather than from inside he should have a place within the settlement. It is clear that if there is a settlement in Rhodesia, it will


not be permanent without the Patriotic Front.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I have been listening with great interest to what the hon. Member has been saying, but I am beginning to lose him. Why does he say that no settlement can come in Rhodesia without the sanction of one armed man, a man armed with Soviet weapons, from within another country?

Mr. Price: I was speaking of realism. If there were a settlement in Rhodesia and Robert Mugabe, for justifiable reasons in his mind, wished to upset that settlement, the communications from the sea into Rhodesia through Mozambique are tailor-made for the disruption of any such settlement. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is right to do all that he can to ensure that a Rhodesian settlement is backed by all the parties involved and not just by some of them.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: Does the hon. Member apply the same criterion to when his Government decided to recognise the Angolan Government, despite the presence of a large, armed fighting minority within Angola?

Mr. Price: I said earlier that I did not want to comment unduly upon matters about which I know little, and particularly about places to which I have never been. I was hoping to go from Maputo to Luanda but the Sabena aircraft which Mozambique rents from the Belgians was two days late in leaving.
The main point is that the job of combating Russian influence in Africa is not so much military exercise as partly a political and partly an economic exercise. This has been my experience, particularly since I have been a member of the Development Committee of the European Assembly. I am not a great European and having spent a year in that toytown Assembly I am finishing with it. It has been an interesting year. One of the useful things that the EEC has done has been to create the Lomé Convention which, for the first time, has brought a sense of genuine partnership in development between Europe and the independent African States. It is within that context that Western influence in Africa is more likely

to be maintained than by the speeches that we hear from the Opposition.
The visitor to Mozambique who received the warmest welcome in terms of the numbers greeting him was Claude Cheysson, the Commissioner for Development in the EEC. The Lomé Convention is not only a treaty between Europe and Africa but a democratic assembly, half from European States and half from African States where people from Somalia and Ethiopia can sit side by side. I hope that Mozambique will join.
The Lomé Assembly recently held one of its twice yearly meetings. The place picked was Maseru, in Lesotho, where the joint assembly of all the European States and other representatives from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific was able to make a forthright statement about majority rule in Southern Africa. The Assembly did that, mainly on the initiative of the European Socialist group. One of the outstanding things about that Assembly was that its resolutions were passed on an all-party basis, and in all the countries except Britain there was broad unanimity on these issues.
What stuck out like a sore thumb was the complete head-in-the-sand reactionary speeches from the two representatives of the Conservative Party. Those two speeches did more damage to Western influence and the attempt to combat Soviet influence in Africa than anything else at the whole meeting. I plead with Conservative Members to follow what I should describe as the more moderate line of the right hon. Member for Knutsford than that of some of the screaming warriors behind him.
This is a serious business. A battle is being fought in Africa not so much with guns as with words. Indeed, it is a battle of hearts and minds. It is a battle for influence. The extreme statements that constantly come from the Opposition are not paralleled in any other party across the political spectrum in the EEC. They come solely from this country and do not in any way help to achieve what we are trying to do.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: I think that the whole House will have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price)


as it always does to an hon. Member who speaks with first-hand experience of one of the areas under discussion this afternoon.
I do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman when he says that the leadership in Mozambique may find Euro-Communists more congenial to talk to than the Soviets. I do not dissent when he talks about the heavy handed attitude of Soviet representatives in Africa and in many other countries.
We all know, too, that, for reasons of expediency, there is a good deal of co-operation between Mozambique and the Republic of South Africa. But the hon. Gentleman was on slightly less certain ground when he said that the battle in Africa was one not of guns but of words and of hearts and minds. The outstanding facts in Mozambique are the presence of large-scale Soviet naval and air facilities at Nacalha and elsewhere and guerrilla camps dependent for their arms on Soviet sources.
The Foreign Secretary is always telling us that we must pay attention to Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo because they have the guns, not the words. The majority support for words seems to lie with other African leaders in Rhodesia.
What conclusion are we to draw from this balance? There is the argument, put forward by Ambassador Andrew Young among others, that the Soviet tide may come over these countries for a time but that it will recede, as it did in Egypt.
Let us consider what happened in Egypt. Egypt was one of the most prosperious countries in the Middle East. It was the centre for banking, shipping, aviation and insurance. It provided teachers, journalists, and artists for the entire Middle East. That was the position until Colonel Nasser decided to spend all the country's money on arms instead of modern progressive equipment. In the years that followed, Egypt turned into a slum. Cairo is very nearly down to the standard of Calcutta today.
After 15 years, Egypt broke away from Soviet influence, but the world has been left with a ruin in what might have been the most prosperous country in the Middle East. Therefore, if anyone suggests that we should let the tide sweep over Rhodesia or South West Africa and see what comes out at the end. I must say

that I am not sure that it would suit our interests or those of the people involved.
I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) on bringing forward the motion. However, I must add that it is nothing less than a scandal that the Government have not given us a full day to debate this matter in Government time. Since the Summer Recess we have had the Anglo-American proposals on Rhodesia, the United Nations condemnation of South Africa, the events in the Horn of Africa and the Malta Conference. Surely that is sufficient to justify a full-scale one-day, if not two-day, debate in this House against the background of the threat that faces peace and, indeed, the jobs of many people in this country. I regret that the Secretary of State is not present to answer the debate. I can only hope that his absence means we shall have a wider African debate in Government time before very long.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) put his finger on the crux of the situation when he underlined that we were up against external intervention in Africa. When the European Powers withdrew from their colonial commitments, they abandoned their right to decide what kind of regime African countries should have within their own boundaries. We did that consciously and deliberately with the hope that perhaps matters would turn out better than they have done. We are not concerned, therefore, with tribalism, racialism, Fascism or even Communism as ideologies. But when we pulled out, we did not expect, and cannot today allow, the old imperialism to be replaced by a new imperialism. Yet that is happening.
We are faced not with Communist aggression, but with Soviet imperialism in a naked colonial form, even cruder in many ways than what was seen in the scramble for Africa at the end of the last century. We are witnessing imperialism taking the form of a super-Power putting its resources behind a particular movement within a State and backing it with arms, instructors, mercenaries, gunboats and now aircraft. The facts are not in dispute as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said from the Opposition Front Bench.
Angola was the first adventure. Angola has come under Soviet control—I will not


say "influence"—thanks to the intervention of the Soviets with Cuban mercenaries and massive supplies of arms and equipment. Without them the Angolan Government could not possibly maintain itself to the extent that it does today.
Mozambique is perhaps more a Soviet protectorate than a colony. But from both of these countries the aggressive adventure goes on. There have been thrusts into Zaire from Angola—stopped only by the intervention of France and Morocco—and into South West Africa using SWAPO, equipped, trained and indoctrined by Soviet instructors and Cubans. There has been similar aggression from Mozambique into Rhodesia using the Mugabe forces of the Patriotic Front.
President Kaunda, who not so long ago denounced Soviet aggression in Angola, has, seeing the weakness of the West, accepted the advice of Ambassador Solodovnikov in Lusaka, given facilities to his old friend Nkomo to operate into Rhodesia from Zambia. There is no secret that, if pro-Soviet forces were to take over Rhodesia and South West Africa, South Africa would be the next on the list. That would threaten our vital raw materials and the jobs of tens of thousands of people here; and the southern approaches to the Indian Ocean from the Atlantic.
The situation in the Horn of Africa is much the same, though rather starker because it is not obscured by overtones of racial, class and colonial issues. There the clash is between three essentially Marxist groups in Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea.
The Soviets have established control of Ethiopia with the help of a Marxist regime buttressed by Soviet instructors, a massive inflow of Soviet weapons and Cuban mercenaries. It can scarcely be doubted that unless something is done to counteract the operations of this combination, the Eritrean movement will be smashed and Ethiopian Democratic Union will be smashed. I do not know whether they will invade Somalia on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, which he feared they might do. But even if they do not, if this Soviet influence is allowed to become the dominant power in the Horn and to establish itself on the Eritrean coast, the Somalians will have little choice but to

go back under Soviet influence. A pax Sovietica will then be established over the whole of the Horn of Africa. This coupled with the Soviet presence in Aden, will mean that the northern approaches to the Indian Ocean will be brought under Soviet control.
A great Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, when told by Mr. Molotov that the Soviets wanted a protectorate over Tripolitania, answered "You want to put your arm across my throat." This is not an arm across our throat. It is a couple of half nelsons being established in Southern Africa and the Horn of Africa on the lifeblood of the West. If not checked our trade routes and our raw materials will be brought under the control of a power which nearly all of us recognise as the chief adversary of the West, a power against which we make the enormous effort that we do under the North Atlantic Treaty.
What are we doing about it? In Angola the Government recognised the Agostino Neto Government under conditions under which I have never seen the Foreign Office recognise any Government before. They were not in control of the country. They could not claim the obedience of most of the citizenship. But it was done. Since then they have made only one declaration, and that was the other day. This was aimed at discouraging the enlistment of mercenaries to fight in Angola. I have no objection to warning people of the danger of being mercenaries; but it would be a little more evenhanded if the Foreign Secretary, who has expressed if not sympathy at least understanding for the guerrillas of the Patriotic Front, were to show the same understanding, the same gentle moral encouragement, to those who still fight for freedom in Angola with the guerrillas of the FNLA and the Unita.
It may well be that the Foreign Office believes that by appeasing the Luanda Government they will help to protect British interests in that country. I wonder whether they will succeed. We have given lavish aid to Mozambique, and lavished praise on President Machel. But only the other day his Government announced the sequestration without compensation of British interests in the country.
What are we doing in South-West Africa and Rhodesia? Broadly, it is a


policy of collusion with Soviet imperialism. We are doing what we can in South-West Africa, I will not say to give a monopoly to the SWAPO movement but to try to create conditions in which they will be the leaders of the new South-West African situation after independence.
The same is true in Rhodesia. The original Anglo-American proposals, with their provision for handing over the security forces to guerrillas, would have given the Patriotic Front total control. I am told that these proposals have been somewhat modified, but still the whole object of the exercise is to create a situation in which the Patriotic Front will have a decent chance of coming out on top. The elections might not be rigged, but will certainly be influenced and prejudiced in their favour.
The Foreign Secretary, when he talks about the Rhodesian situation, has shifted from talking about majority rule and the Six Principles. He talks more and more about the importance of peace. We would all like to see a ceasefire. We would all like to see peace. But we do not want to see peace at any price. We do not want to see peace without justice. We do not want to see a peace which imposes black minority rule instead of white minority rule. But this is exactly where the Foreign Secretary seems to be heading. Anyone can obtain peace if he gives in to the enemy.

Mr. Grocott: Will the right hon. Gentleman, for the record, give his view on the simple question "Why does he now think that Mr. Smith is seeking an internal settlement?"

Mr. Amery: There are a number of reasons, not least that Britain and America have been working with the Soviet Union to encourage the Patriotic Front in its operations against Rhodesia. Not only Mr. Smith is concerned. He is perhaps the least important figure of the leaders in this equation. The significant thing is that Mr. Sithole and Bishop Muzorewa have also realised that, unless they come to terms with Mr. Smith, their throats will be cut, and cut long before his.
We miss no opportunity to condemn and denigrate South Africa even though we find ourselves compelled by economic

interests to prevent any economic embargo being passed by the Security Council, and even though we need its help for the pursuit of whatever diplomacy we are trying to pursue in South Africa.
What are we doing in the Horn of Africa? The Western Powers are sitting like some poor widow watching her children being marched off to a concentration camp, wringing her hands and moaning about it, but, as far as we can see doing nothing. The Persians are doing something, the Saudis are doing something: but, as far as we can see, we are declining to go to the United Nations because we know that we shall be defeated there. To pass the buck to the OAU is about as effective as going to the Arab League. There is no semblance of unity in the OAU. We are sitting back and letting things slide out of our grip by default.
Why are we pursuing what appears on the surface to be a suicidal policy? There are some questions that we ought to ask the Ministers and the scribes and Pharisees who support them in the Press and elsewhere. Why do they pay so much attention to the trivial issues and ignore the basic issues? A lot of time is spent discussing the sanctity of boundaries and the importance of not allowing the Somalis to get away with the aggression which they are alleged to have committed in Ogaden. But this is not the real issue. The real issue is whether Soviet imperialism is to control the Horn of Africa. Why do we spend so much time on the trivial?
Why do we magnify the dangers? Why do we exaggerate the power of the Patriotic Front guerrillas? Anybody who has been to Rhodesia, as many hon. Members have, in the last few months knows that the country is in no danger of a military collapse. Scarcely a military objective has been attacked by the guerrillas. Their victims have been tribal headmen, old women and children. There have been hardly any proper military encounters.
What is the wishful thinking that leads us to say that Mr. Nkomo, in spite of what he says in public, is probably on our side? Why is it put about that President Machel is not really committed to the Soviets in spite of all the things that he has said? Why do we never give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Smith when he says that he wants to see Rhodesia


aligned with the West? Why do we miss no opportunity to denigrate Bishop Muzorewa and Mr. Sithole and depict them as Uncle Toms, just because they happen to be siding with the West against Moscow?
Why did all this happen? If the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) were consulted about it he would say that there were enemy agents in the Government camp. He would say that there was a plot. I do not think that that is so. Then what is it? Is it stupidity? There is an element of that, I dare say, about it.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, by his gratuitous regrets over what happened recently in Saudi Arabia, and by the grovelling apology that followed, has not shown more than a very amateurish style in handling foreign affairs. Nor was conceding the Gautemalan claim against Belize in principle by offering to cede a slice of Belize territory showing anything but a terrifying naivety in the conduct of foreign affairs. It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Certainly the Secretary of State has succeeded in rivalling President Carter in his gaffes. But I do not believe that stupidity is the crux of the matter. I have worked with the Foreign Office. I know it. I do not believe that it is stupid.

Mr. Tom Litterick: Speaking of naivety, I have been seriously wondering, as the right hon. Gentleman has been speaking, whether he can tell us whether there is any African independence movement, from anywhere in Africa or Egypt to the most southerly point of Africa, which has not been characterised by him and his colleagues on the Conservative Benches as a tool of Moscow, as Communist or Communist type, including, within the last three years, both organisations now fighting in Angola which he mentioned in a favourable context only a few minutes ago. Is there an African liberation movement that he has not characterised in those terms? Is that not just a little naive and, in the event, slightly stupid?

Mr. Amery: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman did me the courtesy of listening carefully to what I said earlier. I said that we are concerned not with

Communism or tribalism or racialism, but with Soviet imperialism. The FNLA and UNITA movements in Angola—and there are comparable guerrilla movements in Mozambique—are no longer in any way supported, inspired, instructed or even indoctrinated by the Soviet Union. That is why, whatever their ideologies, they seem to be objectively on our side, just as the Chinese People's Republic, though miles away in its ideological views from mine, is ideologically on our side in resisting the spread of Soviet imperialism in Asia and elsewhere. I think it is the hon. Gentleman who is showing naïvity in his criticism.
I do not think that stupidity is the cause of the Government's policy. Is it Machiavellianism? Is it some brilliant approach to the matter? Is it some concealed way in which we shall detach the catspaws of Soviet imperialism and make them good allies of the West? I doubt it. I think that we know the answer. The answer is that it is fear; and Ambassador Young gave the game away when he said in Malta that any settlement must satisfy the East. He gave the game away when he said that in his judgment racialism was a more serious threat than Communism.
It is not fear of the Soviets only or mainly. It would be irrational to be too frightened of the Soviets at the present time. They are still a paper tiger in Southern Africa and in the Horn. The lines of communication that link the Horn of Africa with the Soviet Union and Southern Africa with the Soviet Union are long and tenuous, and if the West chose to confront it in either area the Soviet Union would have no choice but to give way.
The fear is a fear of their own party opinion. It is the fear of the Administration in Washington of what will happen to Democratic Party opinion if they stand up to a threat overseas. It is the fear of the Foreign Secretary and the Government here of how their party would react if they were to have the courage to stand up and defend the interests of the West.
What we are heading for is another Yalta Agreement in which everything is done in an attempt to reach a compromise with the Soviets and include them in. There was some excuse for the Yalta Agreement. The Soviets were in physical


occupation of much of Eastern Europe. But here we are trying to bring the Soviets into Rhodesia and South-West Africa and to tolerate their presence in the Horn of Africa. I would not be surprised, at the end of the day, to see the Government try to include them in a South African solution as well.
We have been through this before, as some of the older amongst us remember. Britain and France went down this road before. We did not want to frighten our public opinion by denouncing the Nazi danger too loudly. We did not want to hurry rearmament. So we waited and let things slide until Hitler could no longer believe that we would stand and defend our interests at any point. I think it is fair to say that, though not morally speaking objectively speaking, the appeasers were as guilty of launching the Second World War as were the aggressors. Let us not make that mistake again.
Let me appeal to the Foreign Secretary. He is in a position to say a great deal to the Americans, to our allies in Europe and to British public opinion—to alert them to the danger. He is also in a position to do what no young man or no other statesman in the country can do. There are a number of things that he could do. There is no reason why he should not sell arms to the Somalis. There is no reason why he should not give moral encouragement to those who are resisting Soviet imperialism. There is no reason why he should not throw his weight behind the internal settlement in Rhodesia and if it comes off, try further to mediate between the interim Government in Rhodesia and the Patriotic Front.
The Foreign Secretary's tenure of office may well be short, and it is tempting for him to try to bid for support from the broadest spectrum of his party that he can get. His credit is not what it was when he first took office, but the opportunity is there to warn our allies in America and Europe and to warn the people of Britain. If he will not, we must and will.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I had hoped that at least my first proposition would be broadly agreed to in the House, but having listened to what was said by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and

the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) I am doubtful about that, mild though by proposition seemed to me to be.
My first propsition is that we can look at Africa not as though it is a kind of chessboard on which we can play games, and perhaps even fight wars as long as it is other people's blood and bones, but as a place where people live, where they have legitimate national aspirations, and where in many respects, they seek the things that we seek here.
I listened very carefully to the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester and to the right hon. Member for Pavilion, and as far as I can recall they made no reference to that subject. The whole force of their remarks was that if one pawn is moved, how can we find another pawn to move somewhere else to counter it?
What seems to be a far more crucial and fundamental question, and in the long run far more in our own interests to ask, is what do the people in this area think and want, and how can we, if we intervene at all, help them fulfil their legitimate national aspirations? If we concentrate on that, not only shall we be morally right, but in the long run we shall be militarily right, too, if that is the right phrase.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be fair. Did he not hear me say specifically that one of the actions that the Government should take is to warn the newly independent people of Africa of the threat to their freedom represented by Soviet activity in Africa? I made that point. Possibly the hon. Gentleman did not hear me make it.

Mr. Grocott: I am all for the maximum dissemination of information, as long as it is that and not propaganda, but that seems to be a relatively minor point in the context of the aspirations of groups of people and nations who, generally speaking, are concerned with their own self-determination and their own nationalism, in much the same way as we have been over the centuries. That is the first point that I had hoped would be uncontentious—that we should treat the area not as a chessboard but as a place where people have legitimate interests and aspirations and put them first.
My second proposition—and it always amazes me that Tory Members do not accept this—is that of all the "isms" that have infected Africa—whether Communism, Socialism, neutralism, a vogue word of a few years ago, or Maoism—the most persistent and powerful has been, as in Europe, nationalism.
I do not deny that to try to define exactly what we mean by nationalism is inordinately difficult. I do not deny, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) said, that the boundaries on the African continent are the kind of boundaries that my three-year-old son might have drawn a little better if he had had a pencil and map. They were lines on a map drawn by historical accident, but so were many of the boundaries of nations in Europe.
For all that, they have been consistent boundaries. The surprising thing since the Second World War has been the persistence of these colonial boundaries since the British, French and Portuguese empires have been dissolved. They have remained fairly static, and I am sure that I should not have forecast that had I been looking at things 30 years ago.
Nationalism is the crucial powerful force within Africa. It amazes me that Conservatives, for whom on their own admission the force of nationalism within themselves is such a motivating factor, seem powerless to recognise that same force in others. That has been the problem of nationalists throughout the ages. The strongest are the least willing to recognise the force in others.
One of the few Western leaders—perhaps the only one—who recognised the strength of nationalism most successfully in the post-war world, particularly in relation to the Third World, was General de Gaulle. In all his dealings with the Third world he recognised the strength of nationalism, and therefore was persona grata in the Third world. He recognised this in Algeria, even though he would never have come to power had it not been for Algeria.
I quote from a book entitled "South Africa, White and Black—or Brown" written by Colonel P. A. Silburn, a Member of the first two South African Parliaments. His book was published in 1927, and one paragraph of it reads:

The rumblings in India—reports of unrest among this or that frontier tribe; the insecurity of European lives in Egypt and the seditious speeches of political leaders in that country; attacks upon life and property of Europeans in China; insubordination of native chiefs in Bechuanaland; and fanatical outbursts among certain small tribes in Sudan and Somaliland, though widely separate geographically can be traced to the same cause—propaganda from Moscow.
That could have done as a text for today's debate. The views of Conservative Members have not changed, indeed they have fossilised. Every national movement is mistaken as a Communist movement. We still make the same mistake, believing that national movements in Egypt, India, Bechuanaland, Botswana, Somaliland and so on are all Communist inspired. We still seem to believe that the world would be carrying on as it was in the 1920s if it were not for the evil men in Moscow. That is a dangerously ludicrous position to hold. It is dangerous for the West and for the future of the peace of the world and race relations.
Where does Britain stand on these issues? If one takes the view that nations must have their own destiny in their own hands and nationalism is the most powerful force at work, where does this country stand in the most crucial area of Africa? I make no bones about concentrating on Southern Africa. I have visited the area, but I do not regard a visit as the sole criterion for speaking on this issue in a debate. In the nationalist argument in Southern Africa, on which side is Britain seen to be, and on which side has Britain been since the Second World War, and even during the period of this Labour Government?
If I were an adviser in the Kremlin I would tell the Soviet leaders that the best possible thing for the Western Governments to be seen to be doing in Southern Africa would be the thing most calculated to further Soviet interests in that area—identifying the West with White racist regimes. In South Africa and Rhodesia this is an incontestable proposition. In Rhodesia we still fail to state in unequivocal terms exactly where our sympathies lie. Although I am delighted by recent advances, I must say that as long as Mr. Smith continues with his intransigence, and his refusal to give elementary democratic rights to most of his people, and as long as he continues


to murder people in his country, we should make such an unequivocal statement.
I quote just one statistic—and anyone can throw statistics around. Since April 1975, when the Rhodesian Government, for reasons that were no doubt very wise, ceased to give the figures of the number of Africans who were hanged in their gaols, 113 Africans have been executed in Rhodesian gaols. What a legacy of bitterness must come from that! Many of these people have been hanged for offences such as recruiting guerrillas, encouraging the liberation movement and for doing the kind of things that I hope hon. Members of this House would do today if this country were run and controlled by a small minority denying us our legitimate rights.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) began by talking about self-determination. Is it not true that at this moment Mr. Smith, together with black African leaders, is trying to agree on a settlement based on universal franchise and a multi-racial State which would be self-determination? At the same time our Foreign Secretary is combining with others outside to impose a settlement on Rhodesia. Does the hon. Member believe in self-determination? If so, he must not talk of liberation armies. They do not seek out the Rhodesian security forces to fight. These terrorists go into country areas murdering innocent civilians, mostly black and some white. The numbers who have been killed in this manner recently have been very great.

Mr. Grocott: I listened to the hon. Member's speech with interest. He suggested that Mr. Smith is now negotiating. I wish he would apply his mind to the question of why Smith is negotiating. Is it because suddenly he has had a vision of a multi-racial Rhodesia? Does he feel suddenly that freedom of individuals and the democratic right to vote is essential, as are other rights in a democracy? Is it because he has suddenly recognised all these things?

Mr. Goodhew: The answer lies through the ballot box, not through the barrel of a gun.

Mr. Grocott: I hope that that sedentary interjection is on the record. I have

heard naive statements in my life, but that must rank as the most naive of all.
The second question is: if this is Mr. Smith's conversion, where is his Damascus? Why did he not do it 10 years ago? The hon. Gentleman knows—although his constituency organisation, or some group the nature of which I cannot imagine at the moment, may not recognise it—that the only reason Smith is remotely interested in a settlement is the courage of men such as Mugabe and Nkomo and the courageous men fighting under their control and direction for the liberation of their country, as I hope we should all do in our country. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. Where is the self-determination in a country where nine-tenths of the population are not allowed to vote?
I have said that, for all the legitimate pre-occupation of the House with Rhodesia, Rhodesia is the minnow. South Africa is the shark. South Africa is the country to which we should direct our attention, those of us who are anxious to be on the right side in this nationalistic battle.
Once again, how does the West come out at present qua world opinion in the debate about what is going on within South Africa? There just is not the time to start giving details of the horrors being perpetrated by Vorster and his gang—I am reluctant to elevate it to the status of a government—in South Africa, particularly over the past two or three years. Has the horror quite sunk in yet in this country of the death and murder of Steve Biko? Can we imagine that in his death throes, almost, this man, after being to all intents and purposes murdered by the security police, was taken 750 miles—almost the distance from Land's End to John o'Groats—naked, manacled, desperately ill, on the floor of a Land Rover?
That terrible thing was done over much worse roads than the roads by which one can traverse the distance from Land's End to John o'Groats. It was done with the full connivance of the doctors. Can one imagine any greater condemnation of certain sections of the medical profession than that? I need hardly say that it was done with the full connivance of the police. We see in the verdict that appeared thereafter that it was done in effect with the full complicity of the


court that conducted what can loosely be described as an investigation into what went on.
It is not just Steve Biko. He is the one that is remembered. He is a further reason why the chances of any peaceful settlement in South Africa diminish with every day that passes. It is what has happened in South Africa, also, over the past couple of years. Since 1976, there have been 25 deaths in detention of young men who, it is claimed, have died either from hanging themselves or through falling from the eighth floor of buildings in Pretoria and Johannesburg. Those are the deaths of people who were held in detention with no charge having been brought against them and about whom, generally speaking, their families did not hear until afterwards. The figure for 1976 alone of deaths of Africans in police custody, no matter for what reason they were in police custody, was 130.
That is an appalling indictment of any country, but I can only say as someone who calls himself a Christian that I find it doubly despicable when this is a country that still has the audacity to claim that it is defending Christian civilisation. That is perhaps the most distasteful criticism of all.
If we are to have any influence at all in Africa it can be only on the basis of our having some moral authority on the continent. Even the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester does not think that we could settle it militarily on our own. We need some moral authority. That moral authority cannot possibly come as long as in a crucial part of Africa we are all too often seen to be on the wrong side.
There will be no finesse when these judgments are made. We are seen now to be on the wrong side. What is happening in the Horn of Africa is a minor frontier incident compared to what is likely to happen in South Africa over the next decade or so. If we are to have any moral authority we must get on the right side of that debate clearly and unequivocally. We have begun to do this in the past two years, under my right hon. Friend. I can only hope that we continue along those lines.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) advanced the proposition that the Africans would rather run their own show their own way, or—to put it in more stilted language—that they have legitimate national aspirations. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman—perhaps he would stay to listen to what I have to say—but so did the Latvians, the Estonians, the Poles, the Czechs and the Hungarians but it did not do them much good.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about nationalism. The extraordinary thing about Labour Members is that they believe that all forms of nationalism are good except British nationalism. Their view is that British nationalism and British interests do not matter. I recall going into the office of an African Minister of a country that was about to become independent and he said to me "Mr. Wall, we can never trust you British because you never back your own tribe." There was a lot of sense in that statement.
One's views of all these international matters are coloured by one's assessment of the objective of a potential enemy or adversary. We must try to make up our minds as to the intention of the rulers of the Kremlin. This was laid down clearly in Pravda in August 1973. I will quote an extract to the House:
Peaceful co-existence does not spell an end to the struggle between the two world social systems. The struggle will continue between the proleteriat and the bourgeoisie, between world socialism and imperialism, up to the complete and final victory of communism on a world scale.
I believe that that is what the rulers of the Kremlin are after—
the complete and final victory of communism on a world scale.
They have three choices as to how they may obtain this objective. The first is the nuclear strike, but that would leave a radioactive Europe to take over. So that is highly unlikely. The second is the blitzkreig. They could probably reach the Rhine more quickly than Hitler did but here again there is grave danger of nuclear escalation. So I do not think that they will make that choice.
The third choice is cutting the sea communications of the West. If the West were deprived of energy and of raw


materials, it would mean the end of European industry and the inevitable surrender of European Governments. I believe that this is the key to Russian policy because they could thus attain their objective without moving one soldier or firing one shot. In other words, the key battle that we must face is the battle for resources. This is why I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) on raising this vital subject today.
What are the requirements to win the battle of resources? I remind the House that this is the battle that nearly brought Britain to its knees in World War I and in World War II. I suggest that the requirements are, first, the continued erosion of the will of the West to resist. That is continuing both inside and outside this House. The second requirement is maritime superiority. The Soviet Union already has maritime superiority as regards its nuclear submarine force.
The third requirement is the cutting off of our oil supplies. By "our" I mean our oil supplies and those of Western Europe and, to a lesser extent, those of the United States. The last requirement is the closing of access to vital raw materials. Here the key lies in Southern Africa.
I believe that that is why the Soviet Union appointed its top expert on Africa, Vasilily Solodovnikov, as ambassador in Lusaka. I believe that he has been sent there to preside over the withdrawal of Western influence from the whole of Southern Africa and replace it with that of the Soviet Union. The first act in the game is to take over Rhodesia, then Namibia or South West Africa, and finally South Africa itself.
The key is control of energy supplies to the West. I do not want to labour this matter, because it has been well explained by my hon. and gallant Friend. All I will add is that 1 million tons of oil a day destined for the West pass Cape-town, and that 200 tankers belonging to Western nations are afloat in the Indian Ocean on any one day. If those supply routes were interrupted for any long period, Western industry and, above all, Western military industries would cease to function.
There is one even more important factor. If the Soviet Union maintained

the control that it exercises today in Angola and Mozambique and extended it to South Africa, it would control a vast amount of the world's key minerals. Unfortunately, these minerals are found in great degree only in the USSR and South Africa. I will give the figures to put them on record.
If the USSR managed by some means or other to control the mineral supplies of South Africa, it would altogether then control 94 per cent. of the world's production of platinum and 99 per cent. of its reserves; 67 per cent. of the production of chrome and 84 per cent. of reserves; 62 per cent. of manganese production and 93 per cent. of reserves: 72 per cent. of gold production and 68 per cent. of reserves; 70 per cent. of vanadium production and 97 per cent. of reserves; 26 per cent. fluorspar production and 50 per cent. reserves 47 per cent. of asbestos production and 35 per cent. reserves; 43 per cent. of uranium production and an unknown amount of its reserves, a great deal of which are likely to be found in South-West Africa or Namibia.

Mr. Litterick: This is fantasy.

Mr. Wall: These are official figures. If the hon. Gentleman would like to check them, he is at liberty to do so. No doubt the Minister will contradict me if he believes that the figures are not approximately correct. They are the latest figures published in authoritative books by the minerals industry. I do not include industrial diamonds, titanium and so on.
How can the Russians interrupt supplies of those minerals to the Western world? There are three possible means. One is to create the form of chaos that continues today in Angola and Mozambique. Angola exports iron ore and diamonds from the port of Moscamides. Nothing has been exported in recent years because of the chaos in that country. Another means is to attain political influence over the country and deliberately restrict supplies. The third means is to do what I am told Mr. Brezhnev suggested to the Arabs and increase the cost by 400 per cent. If any of those three things happened, European industry would face disaster and Europe would face surrender or the initiation of a nuclear war.

Mr. Litterick: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us something that has actually happened?

Mr. Wall: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am trying to anticipate what may happen. I am giving the facts. If he does not like them, perhaps he will check them later.

Mr. Litterick: Tedious as it is, I must intervene. There is a whole range of countries along the northern littoral of Africa all of which have been violently liberated—if I may use that phrase—by nationalist movements during the past 20 years. People such as the hon. Gentleman have said of each of those countries that it was Communist controlled. With the one exception of Egypt, each country has discovered vast and important raw materials in its own territory. Will the hon. Gentleman examine what has happened in those North African countries and the way in which their raw material resources have subsequently been exploited and exported? I can assure him in advance that Western Europe has been the principal beneficiary.

Mr. Wall: The hon. Gentleman has already intervened in the debate to make that point. All that I would say to him is that the case of Southern Africa is unique as regards minerals. I hope that he will look up in the Library the figures I have given, and then perhaps he will change his tune.

Mr. Litterick: The hon. Gentleman is still fantasising.

Mr. Wall: An organisation that first saw the danger of losing the battle for resources was the North Atlantic Assembly. In 1972 it passed a resolution recommending the North Atlantic Council to give the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic authority to plan for the protection of NATO-Europe's vital shipping lanes in the Indian Ocean and the Southern Atlantic, including surveillance and communications. The Assembly has followed that resolution up year after year. It is becoming increasingly worried about the lack of protection for NATO shipping in the Indian Ocean and North Atlantic. At its last meeting in Paris at the end of last year it recommended that the North Atlantic Council:

urge member governments to give top priority to increasing the strength of NATO Anti-Submarine Warfare vessels and aircraft;
reinforce the authority given to SACLANT with regard to planning the protection of vital shipping lanes, particularly in the Southern Atlantic and Indian Ocean;
ensure adequate facilities for the surveillance of Warsaw Pact shipping in these areas and also that adequate NATO communications are available in time of tension.
That is regarded by the Assembly as extremely important. The resolution was supported by hon. Members on both sides of this House in the relevant committee and in the plenary session.
We must balance Soviet sea power in that area. I do not want to go into that matter in detail, because my hon. and gallant Friend has already covered the ground. This must be our responsibility together with the United States and the French.
I want to end by suggesting what we should be doing on land in Southern Africa. We must transfer power to the majority race, but to non-Marxists. That is exactly the aim of the discussions in Salisbury today. Bishop Muzorewa, the Reverend Sithole and Chief Chirau know very well that if they do not reach a settlement with Mr. Smith they will be the first people to have their throats cut if the Patriotic Front gains power.
I hope that we shall hear from the Conservative Front Bench that my party will back an internal settlement in Rhodesia, provided the conditions are regarded as fair, and provided it is supported by a referendum. Mr. Smith has committed himself to a referendum among the whites in Rhodesia. I believe that he should also have a referendum among the blacks, which might not be quite so easy, because many of them are not on the voters' roll. But there are methods—such as those used by the Pearce Commission and other ways through the administration—of ascertaining the views of the majority of Rhodesians, thus complying with the Fifth Principle.
It would be easy to have a referendum in which people had to say either "I agree with the broad outlines of the new constitution as agreed by the four leaders" or "I disagree". That would give an immediate indication of the views of the majority of all races in Rhodesia. It should be done quickly, because clearly, if there is to be a general election based


on a new constitution it will take a long time—perhaps a year—for the details to be worked out and the constituencies drawn up.
I do not believe that the Rhodesians have a year in which to obtain approval for whatever arrangements will be announced in the next few weeks. Yet what do we see? As I understand it, the Foreign Secretary is deliberately trying to favour the Patriotic Front, a Marxist-backed organisation. Although he calls himself a Christian Marxist, and is a practising Christian, Mr. Mugabe is backed by Soviet power and by Mozambique, whose leader wants to take over a good chunk of Eastern Rhodesia in exchange for that support. The advent of a Patriotic Front Government would be utterly disastrous for all races in Rhodesia.
If there is an internal settlement, as I believe there will be, the door must be open for the followers of Mr. Nkomo or Mr. Mugabe to play their full part in the coming election, provided they renounce violence. In South-West Africa or Namibia, the Foreign Secretary appears to be backing SWAPO, another Marxist organisation, instead of giving his support to the Turnhalle Alliance, an alliance of all 11 ethnic groups in that country.
The Western ambassador seems to be insisting upon withdrawal of South African troops prior to the independence election which is timed to take place at the end of this year. We know that the moment the South African troops are withdrawn the MPLA, the Cubans and SWAPO will march in and take over the country. Unfortunately, the indigenous forces were created only about 18 months ago. I saw the first Ovambo battalion under training. It will take some time before the Namibians can control their defence and police forces. We must allow them the protection they want because it is the Turnhalle Alliance who say that they will sign a military agreement with South Africa for a limited period. It would be ridiculous to stand in the way of such action.
I come now to the question of South Africa itself. Change is under way. The change is far too slow, but pass laws have virtually been abolished, jobs reservation is in the process of being abolished and multi-racial sport is being encour

aged. I commend to the House an article in The Daily Telegraph on 2nd February which pointed out that Mr. Connie Mulder has now taken over responsibility for these matters. He is a man who is regarded as the most likely successor to the present Prime Minister of South Africa. That underlines the importance of the changes about to take place in South Africa. Mr. Vorster, having won overwhelming approval from the electorate, among the minority races, is in a position to do what many of us have been encouraging him to do for many years, namely to adopt a far more liberal policy than he has been able to adopt in the past.
To sum up—Conservatives support evolution in Africa and above all in Southern Africa. The USSR supports revolution. Where do the Government stand? I believe that the Foreign Secretary has played ducks and drakes with British policy in Southern Africa. The reason for this weak approach was pointed out clearly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). Where does the Foreign Secretary stand? Will he stop playing Moscow's game in Africa?

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: I should like briefly to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), although I will not follow him in general. The hon. Member said that Conservatives believed in evolution and asked where the Foreign Secretary stood. I remind him that in the past this Chamber has resounded with support for freedom fighters, from Prime Ministers no less. The hon. Member will recall that the Earl of Chatham supported the American freedom fighters in their war against the British. The answer to the question whether we are on the side of evolution or revolution is always that we would prefer evolution. I do not want to anticipate the reply of the Under-Secretary of State, but the question we should be asking is, "What is the side of justice?".
There are men of good will in Africa, as there have been elsewhere in the American colonies in the old days, who finally decided that the cause of justice, independence and nationalism demanded that they took up arms. My right hon.


Friend the Foreign Secretary has decided, if I read him aright, that we cannot always seem to be against freedom fighters simply because we prefer evolution if we are convinced that their side is the side of justice.
I do not wish to emulate the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) and carry out a tour d'horizon. I wish to confine my remarks to one pressing current topic, and that is the Horn of Africa. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), with the benefit of his recent, on-the-spot knowledge, has described events there. I shall try to pinpoint one or two of the political factors involved. There can be no doubt, whether we like it or not and whatever side we wish to see ourselves on, that the Somalis invaded across the frontiers of Ethiopia. My hon. Friend may say that this is a special case, but there are always special cases. The special case in this instance is that the Ogaden area is apparently 99 per cent. Somali in tribal composition. That may be the case, but we cannot always call on that type of argument and then neglect it on other occasions.
We should be in a far better position to support the Somalis today if we had questioned the original invasion and if the Somalis had set about what would admittedly have been a long-winded and possibly unsuccessful process of attempting to negotiate a settlement for that area in their own interests. There is a further problem in this case, and it is that the Organisation of African Unity is powerless because its members are divided on the issue. It is powerless because it has always taken a strong stand, in the case of Nigeria and Zaire, against any kind of dismemberment of one of its member States. It knows that such a process could sweep across the continent, resulting in a brush fire of separatist movements and slaughter in various countries. The OAU is in a very weak position to intervene on this issue.
Nevertheless, we must face the fact that the Soviet Union, having had a successful adventure in Angola, is indulging in what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described in answer to a Question from me as adventurism in the Horn of Africa. It would seem that there is a need for the

West to have regard to this situation because there can be no question in my mind but that adventurism feeds upon itself and that a success in this area, like the earlier success in Angola, could give further encouragement to the less cautious hawks in the Kremlin and encourage them to indulge in further activities elsewhere in Africa.
My fundamental belief—I will not go into it in detail, because I have enunciated it in earlier debates—is that the long-run situation can be summed up in the Chinese saying that the Russians are raising up a massive rock only to drop it on their own feet. By that I mean that there is no question but that the Russians, whatever their temporary successes—and to us they may seem rather long-term—will ultimately be driven from one country after another in Africa. I have drawn up a list, while listening to the debate, of countries where this has happened. It is no doubt incomplete but it is a formidable list, including Egypt, the Sudan, Mali, Somalia, the Congo and Guinea. There are probably other countries which could be included.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) spoke of nationalism and emphasised that this is probably the mainspring of the African movements, whether they call themselves Marxist or not. I agree. There is no question in my mind but that the nationalism of African liberation fighters or new African States will be such as to mean that in the long run the Soviet Union has no hope of remaining in these countries. The problem with the proposition put forward by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)—that we must consider what is best for the people in these countries and not let them go under for these three, five or 10 years of Soviet domination or influence—is that we are no longer in a position to decide.
Let us face this matter frankly. Psychologically, whether we like it or not, history has put us on the defensive. In real terms most of the peoples of Africa have had experience of empire—of European empire, or West European empire. They know what that was like and they do not want it to return. The Russians have yet to prove, in many parts of Africa, that they can be worse masters and more stupid than ourselves in the way in which they attempt to run what in


some senses would be a latter-day empire. However, the list of countries I have given that have thrown off Soviet influence shows that people learn relatively fast.
What can we do, even if we cannot decide, on behalf of the various peoples whom the Russians are attempting to influence, to discourage Soviet adventurism which could lead, if it went too far, to a confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States? I should have thought that any idea of a Vietnam-style involvement in the Horn of Africa, on which I am concentrating this evening, or anywhere else in Africa, must be ruled out. It is quite clear that the United States Congress would not again condone that kind of operation, and for us to stand around wringing our hands about this matter, as some Conservative Members like to do, does not get us any further. It merely delays the decision.
The idea, put forward by one Conservative Member, that we should supply arms seems to me to be a total nonsense. In the Horn of Africa today, to attempt to counter the admittedly massive Soviet investment of arms, and possibly Cuban mercenaries, would require a corresponding effort on our side, because a half-way measure which resulted in the defeat of the Somalis would make the position far worse than it is even today.
It seems to me that there are only two lines of approach. A debate in the United Nations, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, has all the ring of the right international approach, but it would quite clearly be a total embarrassment for our friends in Africa, the African leaders themselves. Although the African leaders have to take responsibility for what happens in their continent, there is no reason why we should confront them with the proposition of a debate in the United Nations. I would not regard it as being ruled out, but it is not in my opinion necessarily the best way to proceed.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government ought to attempt to influence our many friends in the African continent with the idea that they have to take up positions. Nations such as Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya, Zaire and others have to take up positions on these matters, because otherwise there may be a danger of a piecemeal Soviet movement into Africa, encouraged by one victory after another.

It is necessary—I recall what Morocco did in the case of Zaire—that if help is to come to States which African neighbours regard as being unduly affected by the influence of the Soviet Union or the Cubans, that help must come from African States themselves in the first instance.
My second proposition is that it must be brought home to the Soviet Union that this kind of activity in Africa is endangering the whole relationship between East and West, the whole question of detente. It is surely not possible for the United States seriously to continue to sit down at the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, or other talks—all of which we wish to succeed—if at the same time the Soviet Union is unrestrained in its activities, in what the Prime Minister has called its adventurism in Africa.
I ask Her Majesty's Government to impress upon the United States Government, who have the main task of negotiating with the Soviet Union on SALT, that this is an absolutely essential proposition to be advanced to the Soviet Union in the weeks and the months ahead, as the position in the Horn of Africa develops for the worst.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. William Shelton: I am delighted to follow in debate the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), who spoke—as, indeed, did his hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott)—about genuine freedom fighters and movements of national liberation. I do not think that I or any of my hon. Friends would argue with the hon. Member for Belper on that.
Occasionally one has to define what one means by a genuine liberation movement. I hope that no Labour or Conservative Members would include the Irish Republican Army. I do not think that they would. Usually the question one asks is whether a liberation movement represents a majority being oppressed by a minority. If it does, as a rule of thumb, one might say that it is a genuine liberation movement of some sort or another.
I was especially interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth. I may find, upon reading Hansard, that I am wrong, but I do not


remember his having said a single word about Cubans, Communism, or about Russian infiltration, involvement or adventurism in any part of Africa. He devoted his speech entirely, as far as I remember, to the liberation fighters without any mention of the subject under discussion, and he referred to their extreme ill-treatment and to the horrors to which they have been subject in various parts of Africa. He did not at the same time mention the horrors in which other people have been involved in other parts of the world.
The hon. Member for Belper reassured the House by saying that the Russians would drop this stone on their feet and be thrown out. He gave us a list of the countries from which Russia has been thrown out. I wish that he could have added East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland. If he suggests that Europe is different in some way, perhaps I can mention Cuba to him, for what is happening with the Cubans in Africa is quite extraordinary.
I lived in South America for 10 years, and during that period the Cubans were trying to infiltrate the South American countries. They failed when Ché Guevara was killed. He was the standard bearer of the Cuban Communist and Marxist infiltration in South America. It is only since that effort failed that the Cubans have been introduced into Africa by their friends the Russians. I suspect that the Cubans have been financed by the Russians in their adventurism in Africa.
We have seen the extraordinary march of the Cubans in Africa. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) described them as the foreign legion of the Russians. I prefer to call them the mercenaries of the Russians, because they are Communists with black faces and are being used deliberately by Russia to advance Russia's ends in Africa.
I do not propose to digress at this point about whether we need to be afraid of Russian adventurism in Africa. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) believes that we should be afraid; the hon. Member for Belper believes that we should not. I believe that we should be afraid. If history proves us to be right, a very heavy burden

of responsibility will fall on those who have dismissed that fear in such a cavalier way.
I believe that it is unlikely, but not impossible, that in 20 years' time we may look back on this decade as we now look back on the decade of the 1930s. If that is so, we shall have much for which to reproach ourselves, but less on the Conservative side than on the Labour side.

Mr. John Mendelson: Unlike last time.

Mr. Shelton: That may well be so. Provided it does not happen, I really do not mind, but if it happens there will be many reproaches to be cast, because I am afraid of Russian intervention in Africa, spearheaded by the Cubans.
What is happening, when one looks into it in more detail, is quite extraordinary. Several Labour Members have said that we all know the facts, but I want to tell the House that it is reported that there are at the moment in Angola about 23,000 Cubans, of whom 9,000 are military. The security in Angola is run by East Germans, and apparently it is run extremely well. That is what we are told. In the last six months, about 4,000 to 6.000 additional Cubans have gone into Angola. No one seems to know how many Cubans there are in Ethiopia. It could be from about 1,000 to about 6,000. It is probably about 3,000, but we do not know.
In Mozambique the number is probably under 1,000. According to the rather dubious source from which I quote, there are supposed to be about 500 Romanians in Mozambique, trained in fighting with tanks. In Tanzania there are supposed to be 500 Cubans, in Guinea 300 to 500, in Equatorial Guinea, 300 to 400, in the Congo 450, in Guinea-Bissau 100 to 200. and in Libya 100. Some of them are doctors but most are military personnel. The figure for Sierra Leone is said to be 100 to 125, for Algeria 35, for Malagasy 30, for Benin 10 to 15, and for Cape Verde also 10 to 15.
The Sunday Telegraph—which I view with less suspicion than do Labour Members, although I do not automatically claim that what it says is true—published some interesting information yesterday. If the report is true, there is a completely new situation developing in South Yemen


—or at least one of which I was completely unaware. According to the Sunday Telegraph, in South Yemen it is again the East Germans who are in control of security. I dare say that the East Germans, after their experience in their own country, are very good at security control. The report states that in South Yemen there are about 4,000 Cubans and about 2,000 East Germans.
In all these countries there are presumably Russian advisers. They seem to have it very well organised. They have the Cubans to do the fighting. The Russians themselves administer, and the East Germans man the security. This is really an extraordinary situation.
If my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester had not put down this motion today, I wonder whether the House would have been debating this matter, whether the Government would have brought our attention to it and whether there would have been a debate in Government time to discuss this bizarre business that is going on in Africa, which has been virtually invaded by a small Caribbean island of some 5 million people—it is a most unusual situation—backed up, apparently by East German security forces. Perhaps the Minister can give a rebuttal to some of these figures.
Why have the Government not said or done anything about this? My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said that he thought that the Foreign Secretary was afraid of his party. After hearing the views of the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth, I believe that my right hon. Friend may very well be right, because if those views are endemic throughout the hon. Member's party, I should be very careful about making the sort of speech from the Labour Benches that I and some of my hon. Friends have made from the Opposition Benches.
What can the British Government do about it? In two specific areas perhaps they have some power to influence events. The first area perhaps, I suppose, is what is happening in Somalia and Ethiopia. President Bane has asked the British Government for aid. I understand that he is receiving at least economic aid from West Germany and that he is receiving aid from Iran. I hold Iran in very great respect. If some Labour Members

do not have the same view about Iran as I have, let me suggest to them that there is nothing improper in at least following the example of West Germany, which is a fine member of the European Community. Therefore, I see nothing wrong in giving aid to President Barre of Somalia.
Indeed, the Foreign Secretary seems to see nothing wrong in it either. On 18th January he made a statement in which he said that he had been requested by Somalia for aid, and he said that no decision had been taken on that request. The words were "no decision". That does not mean that it is impossible, but he had not made up his mind on 18th January while Russian tanks were possibly about to cross the border into Somalia. The Foreign Secretary was thinking about it. He has been thinking about it for two or three weeks. But, at the same time, he said that he had not made up his mind, and presumably he still has not made up his mind, otherwise we should have heard about that.
The Foreign Secretary went on to say that
the conflict should be settled within an African context and without outside interference.
He was not quite brave enough to mention Russia or Cuba. He said:
We have supported OAU mediation efforts. The British Government would be prepared to support an approach to the Security Council if this seemed likely to help work out a basis for a settlement."—[Official Report, 18th January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 451.]
I can hardly imagine a weaker and more ineffectual statement to make to a man who comes to one and says "My country is probably about to be overrun by tanks. Please will you help me?" The Foreign Secretary has not yet made a decision.
Perhaps this evening the Minister will tell us that the Forengn Secretary has made a decision about it and will give aid, or will go to the United Nations or the OAU, or will at least make a speech about it. May we not ask the Minister to ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to stand up somewhere and make a speech about Cuban and Russian intervention and go just a bit further than say "We deplore outside intervention"? May we not expect that from the Foreign Secretary of this country when we have been approached by another Government for aid?
The second area in which the British Government certainly have a power to exercise is in the problem in Rhodesia, which has been with us for so many years. I understand—indeed, we all understand because we have heard it repeatedly from the Foreign Secretary—that the Foreign Secretary does not believe that the internal discussions can lead to a successful solution without the involvement of the Patriotic Front, because he does not believe that, without its involvement, the guerrilla warfare in Rhodesia will cease. Therefore, he says "Without that ceasing, we shall not have the sort of settlement that we want. Therefore, the Patriotic Front must be involved."
Had we had the privilege of the Foreign Secretary being present this evening, I would have said two things to him about that, because this is very important for Rhodesia. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not present. I would have said this to him first—and the House should mark it well. I understand that a distinguished Indian general called on a Minister in the Foreign Office, who sent a telex or a cable, or a message by whatever system of transmission is used, to the Foreign Secretary in Malta. The burden of it was that the guerrilla war carried on by Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe has been and is almost completely ineffectual. This was said by an Indian general based in New York, with extensive contacts from the United Nations. At one time he was military adviser to the United Nations. He apparently told the Foreign Office—I am sure that he did—that the guerrilla war is completely ineffectual and that there is little or no military problem within Rhodesia.
If that is so—and I am sure that the Foreign Office's information must be at least as good as that of this Indian general—surely the approach by the Foreign Secretary should have been to say to Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe "Look, gentlemen, you must get involved in the Salisbury talks whatever happens. Please get involved in the Salisbury talks and play your part in them." By not doing that and by saying to them "We shall not give independence to Rhodesia unless you are satisfied", he has given them a leverage the only result of which must be to prolong that guerrilla war. Surely that must be so.
I have no direct evidence about the success or otherwise of that war, and I do not suppose that any hon. Member has any direct evidence as to that. I merely draw attention to a statement by Mr. Mugabe, who claims to have had 20,000 guerrillas in operation and gives a list of what they have achieved over six years. The list starts with 120 surprise attacks, 48 ambushes, 85 sabotage operations, eight camps attacked, 500 vehicles destroyed—in six years by 20,000 guerrillas. All I can say is that if that is the list that Mr. Mugabe gives, probably the Indian general's view was right and the guerrilla forces are basically ineffectual.
Several hon. Members have asked why Mr. Smith, then, is sitting down at the conference table. It is partly, of course, because of the guerrilla attacks. If there had been no guerrilla war over the past few years, he probably would not have done so. I should have deplored that very much. I do not say "Good for the guerrillas", but I should have deplored it. Other reasons are the efforts of Dr. Kissinger and the intense economic and international pressure. All these things have played their part in leading Mr. Smith to say "I must get on with this", and he is doing it. I accept, of course, that one of the reasons is the guerrilla war.

Mr. John Mendelson: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with amazement. I am only glad that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary does not have to suffer him as one of his advisers, because if the Foreign Secretary were to act on what the hon. Gentleman has been saying during the last few minutes, the consequence would have been that he would have persuaded Mr. Mugabe that he must have a large guerrilla force and must step up raids into Rhodesia. As I understand the Foreign Secretary's view, he does not want the guerrilla war increased but wants to persuade people that they will all have a share if they agree to a peaceful solution.

Mr. Shelton: I do not think the Foreign Secretary would have done that. I think we shall soon see a peaceful settlement in Rhodesia as a result of the internal discussions. The Foreign Secretary has talked time and again about an international viewpoint. He has not talked


in the House, in my hearing, in recent times, about the people of Rhodesia.

Mr. Mendelson: All the time.

Mr. Shelton: He has talked about the two sides.

Mr. Mendelson: Not true.

Mr. Shelton: I have a quotation from Hansard that I would read to the hon. Member if there were time. The Foreign Secretary has also talked about two sides to the fight. My understanding is that Mr. Nkomo, who is a representative of the minority Matabele tribe, and Mr. Mugabe, who is a member of a sub-group of the Shona tribe, together do not, probably, have more than 15 per cent. of the support of the Rhodesian people. The present black leaders negotiating with Ian Smith represent the other 85 per cent. of the tribes in Rhodesia. That is something which the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) can find out. It is not a fifty-fifty situation. It is an 85–15 per cent. situation. I have heard this many times and it was again confirmed by the distinguished Indian general with whom we discussed the matter the other week.
It is not an even balance. I very much hope that the people of Rhodesia will have a referendum. I understand that they would support those people who are at present negotiating with Mr. Smith. If there is an internal settlement, and a referendum, and if Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe join in, as I hope they will, I believe that they will have anything between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. of support in that country. If the Minister has any information to the contrary, I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.
On 25th January the Foreign Secretary was asked by one of my hon. Friends whether the six principles still applied. He said:
We still stand by the basic principles, but they are much more detailed in the Anglo-American proposals."—[Official Report, 25th January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 1367.]
If they have not already done so, I suggest that Labour Members compare the six principles, Dr. Kissinger's proposals and the Anglo-American peace initiative. They will find that there is very little in the six principles that is contained in the Anglo-American peace

initiative, and vice versa. They are two very different documents. I find it quite extraordinary that the Foreign Secretary, in answer to a question, can say that the six principles still apply and are interpreted in the Anglo-American initiative when the two documents have such basic areas of difference. If the Minister can refer to a Rhodesian settlement and say whether the British Government still stand by the six principles or whether they insist on the Anglo-American initiative, I for one would welcome that clarification.
If Labour Members are right in believing that we have nothing to fear from Soviet intervention in Africa, no one will be more pleased than I. If we are right, then in 10, 20 or 30 years we shall have a great deal to accuse ourselves of.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It seems that, consistently in these debates on Africa, Conservative Members pose the wrong question and always give the wrong answer. It is sometimes amusing that they do not look back over history to see how and when people have reacted. I recollect vividly how there was great glee in this country when President Amin overthrew Milton Mobote. It was done on the basis that Mobote was leaning far too much towards Eastern Powers and, therefore, Amin was seen as a great moderating influence on the continent of Africa.

Mr. John Mendelson: They created him over there.

Mr. Hughes: Conservative Members who take that view should look back over the speeches of that period and, perhaps, have a little shame.
If we come a little closer to the present time, only a few months ago the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) was clasping Mr. Sithole to his bosom as a great moderate, whereas I believe that he was the only person actually imprisoned in Rhodesia for trying to overthrow the State. We also have Bishop Muzorewa clasped to the bosom of the Tory Party as being a great moderate. Yet when he went to Blackpool last October to address a fringe meeting at the Tory Party conference—I give him credit for that—he was howled down as being a murderer and a terrorist, whereas he claims—as he claimed in a


Committee Room upstairs—that the guerrillas are not Mr. Nkomo's or Mr. Mugabe's but are Muzorewa's guerrillas.
People take different viewpoints depending on how things are going. The right hon. Member for Pavilion said that the Russians had no tradition of involvement in Africa. We certainly have, and it has never been for the benefit of the indigenous population of Africa.—[HON. MEMBERS "Rubbish."]—If any hon. Member is trying to suggest that Rhodes's great dream of an empire stretching from the Cape to Cairo was for the benefit of the indigenous population he is living in Cloud-cuckoo land. We went into Africa for Britain's imperial and economic interest. If we do not recognise that we understand nothing at all about the continent of Africa.
There are only two reasons why Conservative Members wish to see us still involved in Africa. One is the anti-Soviet influence, which is the subject of this motion, and the second is Britain's economic and imperial interests.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) made the point that we are involved in a battle for resources. He is not concerned about the people of Africa. He is concerned about the resources, which are to be under someone's control. The strange thing is that, time after time, other Conservative Members make precisely the same mistake.
When the guerrilla movements started in Angola and Mozambique and called on the West to assist them, not by supplying arms, but by stopping Portugal from using weapons supplied by NATO during the colonial wars of domination, we refused to help them. We said "It has nothing to do with us." They turned for help elsewhere. To whom else could they turn but to the Eastern bloc Powers which were willing to match their words with actions and give them weapons? As with a self-fulfilling prophecy some hon. Members turned round and said "We told you they were Communists". But they were getting assistance from the East only because we would not assist them.
Now, if we listen to the views of Conservative Members, we find they intend to make precisely the same mistake again. They say that there is far too much Soviet influence, but they are not asking my

right hon. Friends and the Government to go to the assistance of Mozambique and Angola. They are saying "Do not help them at all. Stand back. Leave a vacuum". After that vacuum is filled, as others on many occasions, by the Russians, they will turn round and say "We told you all along. They are under the influence of the Russians".
Frankly, when we have the possibility of assisting these countries, either through money, economic experts or trade and technical assistance, we stand back and say "We shall not help them because they are too tainted with this thing called Communism". Millions of people in the world must be asking themselves "What is this thing called Communism?" Many millions of people have no idea what Communism is, but they constantly see these great protestations in the House of Commons by experienced world-wide travellers up to the status of rear-admiral and ask "Why are they against Communism?" When they hear Smith and his cohorts attacking Communists they ask "What is this thing called Communism?"
Instead of attacking Communism in Africa we should be attacking the conditions which make Communism attractive to those people who are looking for a philosophy. That is what we ought to be looking at.
When looking at this whole argument, therefore, we should be thinking primarily of the people of Africa and what their future is to be. We should be thinking of how we can help them in a positive way. There is no point in complaining about the negative side of what is happening and wanting to withdraw. We should be thinking of the positive aid that we can give. We should also reflect that, consistently in the past, we have backed the wrong horse and that that has led to great difficulties.
If we fail to recognise, especially in Rhodesia and South Africa, the role that we can play to see a peaceful change brought about, and to see that people who have had no voice in their country at last have a voice in the creation of democratic parts of Africa, we shall have failed those people, in which event the shame will not be on the Government Benches: it will be on the Opposition Benches.

6.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. John Tomlinson): We have had an extremely useful debate. Before dealing with some of the specific matters raised in it, I might say to the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) that, although he began his speech today by referring to the failures in Africa during the 1960s and 1970s, for 14 of those years it was his own party which was responsible—even if his assumptions were correct.

Mr. Rifkind: Which 14?

Mr. Tomlinson: I reject as emphatically as I can the suggestion in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's motion that there has been any failure on the part of Her Majesty's Government to recognise the dangers inherent in the present circumstances in Africa.
I listened with interest to the expressions of concern about Soviet involvement in Africa, especially in the Horn of Africa. The Government are concerned by any evidence of Soviet activity which destabilises the area or which hinders a peaceful settlement. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House on 18th January, we have made very clear our views on the dangers of supplying quantities of sophisticated arms in these circumstances. I note that the arms which fuel the present conflict in the Ogaden, to which I shall return later, came to both sides from the Soviet Union.
Before taking up individual arguments put forward in the debate, I should like to make a few general observations about the situation in Africa.
What the African countries need quite clearly is stability in which they can develop their economies without outside interference. How that stability is to be achieved no doubt varies from area to area. But it is for the Africans themselves to work out how to achieve it without outside interference. It is for them to resolve African problems, whether by bilateral agreements or through the OAU or the United Nations. I am convinced that that is the way that the Africans themselves wish to handle their affairs.
In co-operation with our partners, we are doing what we can to help where help

is required, or where it has been sought, or where a problem is already in an international forum—for example, in our attempts to create an internationally acceptable solution in Rhodesia, a multiracial society in South Africa, or to bring Namibia to independence in accordance with Security Council Resolution No. 385.

Mr. John Davies: In that catalogue, the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the continued presence of a very large number of extraneous troops and others from Cuba. Is not a destabilising effect caused by that as well, and is not that also a matter in which the Government should be involving themselves?

Mr. Tomlinson: If the right hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall refer to this problem later in my remarks. I said that I should be dealing with specific questions but that first I wanted to make a few general observations.
The behaviour of outside Powers such as the Soviet Union in the African context is relevant to the general state of East-West detente. In this connection, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), who dealt with the matter in his remarks.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stressed on 18th January that it was in no one's interests that this dispute, especially in the Horn of Africa, should become an issue between East and West. I hope that the Soviet authorities paid close attention to his remarks. The British Government are committed to the detente process, as are the Soviet Government. There is no alternative if potential crisis and conflict in a nuclear age are to be avoided.
But the British Government have always made it clear to the Russians that detente does not exclusively apply to East-West relations in Europe and to the strategic balance. It applies world-wide It has a universal dimension. If the Soviet Union does not act with restraint in crises in Africa, inevitably that will affect public confidence in the East-West detente with consequences which could be damaging to both sides.
The Government have emphasied constantly that detente requires all countries, East and West, to behave with responsibilility in conflicts and to work for peaceful negotiated settlements. That is our


approach to the conflicts in the Horn of Africa and Rhodesia, and I hope that it will condition the approach of the Soviet Union and other powers.

Mr. Richard Luce: The whole House wants to know, especially in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), precisely what diplomatic initiatives the British Government and other Western countries are taking to reach greater stability in the Horn of Africa. Will the hon. Gentleman explain especially why the British Government are giving more than £2 million a year in bilateral aid to the Marxist regime in Ethiopia?

Mr. Tomlinson: The House is more likely to gain an understanding of these matters if I am allowed to make my own speech in my own time. I shall endeavour to reply to as many points as possible. However, it is right that before coming to them I should get some general observations on the record.
The best approach to Africa can be summed up in three words—"aid, not arms". One of the biggest problems which Africa and other developing countries face is the need for assistance in developing their economies. The United Kingdom and other Western countries do their part through bilateral and multilateral aid programmes and by investment and trade. It is no secret that Western efforts in this respect are far superior to the assistance tendered by the Soviet Union and other East European countries. It is in the interests of the African countries that aid provided by outside Powers, including the Soviet Union, should be concentrated less on military assistance and much more on economic and technical assistance.
A final general observation that I make is that it is important, when considering Soviet involvement in this area, to be precise about the issues which are of concern. Every country has the right to work for the improvement of its relations with other countries and to strengthen its influence in foreign capitals. This applies as much to the Russians as to anyone else. What is at issue is not the right of the Soviet Union to develop relations with Africa but the extent and nature of Soviet involvement. It is a matter of

concern when an outside Power uses its influence in a way which does not help towards, or which in some cases positively hinders, the peaceful settlement of a crisis.
I make it quite clear that there is no foundation to recent Ethiopian allegations that, at the Washington meeting of representatives from five Western Governments on 21st January, a secret agreement to arm Somalia was reached. On the contrary, the communiqué issued after that meeting reaffirmed the belief of the five Governments concerned that no lasting solution to the problems of the region could be found through force of arms and that negotiation offered the only means to end the fighting and to find a durable settlement. This remains the objective of the British Government.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 18th January, we have not been supplying arms to either side in this conflict. False allegations that arms in use by Somalia have a NATO origin seem calculated to try to aggravate the problem and to convert it into an East-West issue. We stand firmly by the OAU principles of territorial integrity and the peaceful settlement of disputes. My right hon. Friend has made our position quite clear to the Ethiopian Government.

Mr. Amery: Does that mean that the Russians can pour in arms to any extent they like and that the West can do nothing to counter it?

Mr. Tomlinson: It means exactly what it says, nothing more and nothing less.
I turn to the specific points raised in the debate. I shall be dealing with the Horn of Africa specifically—

Mr. James Johnson: rose—

Mr. Tomlinson: If my hon. Friend will contain himself, I shall be returning to the subject of the Horn of Africa specifically a little later.
The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester and the right hon. Members for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) mentioned Ogaden and Soviet presence in a number of countries. Let us try to get clear the factual position. In regard to Angola, Her Majesty's Government deplore any military presence in Southern Africa which


heightens the tension in the area. However, I must point out that Angola is a sovereign independent country which is entitled to decide on the countries from which it chooses assistance.
The Angolan Government have said that Cubans and Soviets are in Angola at their invitation to assist in the reconstruction of the country in the aftermath of civil war—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is the statement made by a sovereign Government. If the right hon. Member for Pavilion asks why we have relations with that country, the answer is clear, namely, that in common with most other Western States we recognise the MPLA Government as being the legitimate Government of Angola. The establishment of diplomatic relations followed logically from that recognition and Government recognition was given in unison with other Western States.
A number of hon. Members referred to the situation in Mozambique. Both the Russians and Cubans have signed friendship treaties with Mozambique and are providing technical and military advisers. In addition, the Russians are providing military equipment to armed forces in the country. Our goal is to ensure that Mozambique maintains its professed position of non-alignment. It is important, for example, that the West does not neglect or snub Mozambique. If Tory Members have nothing better to do than to laugh, they should appreciate that their attitude, particularly on our aid to Mozambique, is likely to have no other effect than to drive that country more firmly into the arms of the Soviet bloc. I hope that Conservative Members who are so hostile to British aid to Mozambique realise the end result of their advocacy if it were in any way successful.
Let me again spell out the basis of our aid in Mozambique. In our policy of aid, we hope that we have heard the last of the nonsense continually uttered by the Conservative Members to the effect that we are supporting a Marxist regime. We, in concert with nearly the whole of the Western world, in conformity with United Nations requirements and regulations, are giving aid to Mozambique, and in all cases we have received assurances, which the Government find totally satisfactory from the Mozambique Government, that British assistance will be used for peaceful purposes only.

Mr. Luce: rose—

Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot give way if I am to answer the hon. Gentleman's earlier question. Therefore, I must plough on.
I wish to turn to the subject of Rhodesia. I do not want to say a great deal about Rhodesia, because the Foreign Secretary has recently clearly restated the position. A number of hon. Members asked about Cuban-Soviet involvement in Rhodesia. I cannot give any estimates of the numbers involved, but I am concerned about any outside involvement in the Rhodesian conflict, which I believe should be solved through negotiation rather than by bloodshed. Such involvement would give us serious concern.
When my right hon. Friend went to Moscow in October last, he explained the Anglo-American approach fully to Mr. Gromyko and made it clear how important is restraint on the part of all outside Powers if the proposals are to succeed. It is no secret that the Russians are hostile to United Nations involvement, and it is also no secret that there are close ties and material support for ZAPU from the Soviet Union. Her Majesty's Government believe that the only way to achieve an internationally acceptable solution is to persevere with Anglo-American proposals, and I urge all parties to recognise this.
One contributor referred to the subject of shipping, and particularly to the Soviet naval presence in the Indian Ocean. If the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester and the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) are implying that recent developments in Africa have increased the capability of the Soviet Union to threaten the sea lanes from facilities in Africa, I question that. One consequence of the recent developments in the Horn was the loss to the Soviet Union of very valuable naval facilities at Berbera, in Somalia. The Russians have not made up for that loss, although no doubt they would like to do so, and are actively looking for alternatives.
My hon. Friend for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) was right to bring the human perspective into this debate. Because of the circumstances he described, I have emphasised the African need as being for aid, not arms. He was right to draw to the attention of the House the horrors of apartheid. Against that


background, I must tell the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester, who raised the subject of the South African arms embargo and the Simonstown Agreement, that we on the Labour Benches, and I am sure many Opposition Members, regard apartheid as a totally abhorrent principle. It is the very fact of apartheid which provides the fertile soil in which influences hostile to the West flourish. This point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).
The abrogation of the Simonstown Agreement and the arms embargo are measures which we have taken and are taking as actions which are right in themselves and a clear demonstration of our opposition to and abhorrence of apartheid policies in Southern Africa.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I did not mention apartheid. Therefore, I do not know why the Minister is answering about it. Will he answer the point put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce)? That is what I want to know in connection with my debate.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am answering on the South African arms embargo and the Simonstown Agreement. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot see that those matters and apartheid policy in Southern Africa are connected, it is his myopia and not mine that prevents him from seeing it.
I wish now to deal with the main theme running through the debate, namely, the serious concern about the situation in the Horn of Africa. The crucial question has been referred to by many hon. Members. Her Majesty's Government are quite clear about the situation. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, we regret this continued conflict and favour an early negotiated settlement, although we in no way underestimate the difficulties involved. Direct outside involvement in the conflict clearly is unhelpful and we are opposed to it.
As my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secreatary has also made clear, we regret

that the Ogaden conflict has become an issue in East-West relations. We have urged the Soviet Union and other countries to leave the dispute to the OAU to settle. It should remain a regional question to be settled in an African context. We are not supplying arms to either side in the dispute. We uphold the OAU principles of territorial integrity and peaceful settlement of disputes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) asked about the United Nations role in this matter. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 18th January, we should be prepared to support an approach to the Security Council if this seemed likely to help work out a basis for settlement.

I should like to see a measure of genuine international support for Security Council involvement. But we shall continue to keep this aspect under review. The United Nations might be able to afford some direct support of value to African mediation.

More generally, I wish to affirm our view that the conflict in the Horn of Africa is complex and damaging in its effects. The Nigerian Government, who chair the OAU Good Offices Committee between Ethiopia and Somalia, are pursuing their efforts to bring the two sides together. I sincerely hope that they will be successful. We are prepared to give any support we can to this end.

Mr. John Davies: The Under-Secretary of State has failed absolutely to allay the anxieties that have been expressed from the Opposition Benches. He has indicated concern at every moment of his speech but never one ounce of action.

Mr. Tomlinson: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the action that can be taken in circumstances where we are—

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes, 180.

Division No. 97]
AYES
[7.00 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Banks, Robert
Brooke, Peter


Alison, Michael
Biggs-Davison, John
Buck, Antony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Budgen, Nick


Baker, Kenneth
Braine, Sir Bernard
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)




Channon, Paul
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rathbone, Tim


Churchill, W. S.
Hurd, Douglas
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Cope, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rhodes, James R.


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Knox, David
Sainsbury, Tim


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lamont, Norman
Scott, Nicholas


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Dykes, Hugh
Luce, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McCrindle, Robert
Sims, Roger


Elliott, Sir William
Macfarlane, Neil
Sinclair, Sir George


Emery, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mates, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Fell, Anthony
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stainton, Keith


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mayhew, Patrick
Stanley, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Forman, Nigel
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mills, Peter
Tapsell, Peter


Fox, Marcus
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Norman


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Molyneaux, James
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Monro, Hector
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Goodhart, Philip
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Gorst, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wakeham, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Gray, Hamish
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Nelson, Anthony
Wells, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neubert, Michael
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hannam, John
Newton, Tony
Wiggin, Jerry


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Winterton, Nicholas


Hicks, Robert
Osborn, John
Younger, Hon George


Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)



Hordern, Peter
Page, Richard (Workington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
M. Malcom Rifkind.


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Raison, Timothy





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Doig, Peter
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Anderson, Donald
Dormand, J. D.
Janner, Greville


Armstrong, Ernest
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Atkinson, Norman
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Keywood)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
John, Brynmor


Bates, Alf
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Bean, R. E.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Beith, A. J.
English, Michael
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Kaufman, Gerald


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Kerr, Russell


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ford, Ben
Kinnock, Neil


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lamborn, Harry


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
George, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Buchan, Norman
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Lipton, Marcus


Buchanan, Richard
Ginsburg, David
Litterick, Tom


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Golding, John
Luard, Evan


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, John (Islington C)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Carmichael, Neil
Grocott, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Cartwright, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
McCartney, Hugh


Clemitson, Ivor
Hardy, Peter
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Harper, Joseph
McElhone, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Cowans, Harry
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cryer, Bob
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Maclennan, Robert


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Heffer, Eric S.
Madden, Max


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hooley, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Dalyell, Tam
Horam, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Huckfield, Les
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Meacher, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mendelson, John


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mikardo, Ian


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hunter, Adam
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce




Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Tinn, James


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Roper, John
Tomlinson, John


Molloy, William
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sandelson, Neville
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Sedgemore, Brian
Ward, Michael


Moyle, Roland
Sever, John
Watkinson, John


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Weitzman, David


Noble, Mike
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Oakes, Gordon
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Whitehead, Phillip


O'Halloran, Michael
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Whitlock, William


Orbach, Maurice
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ovenden, John
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Padley, Walter
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Palmer, Arthur
Snape, Peter
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Park, George
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Parker, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pavitt, Laurie
Steel, Rt Hon David
Woodall, Alec


Perry, Ernest
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Prescott, John
Stoddart, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Stott, Roger



Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Richardson, Miss Jo
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Mr, Thomas Cox and


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thompson, George
Mr. Ted Graham.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Seven o'clock, the Proceedings on the Motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of Government Business).

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SOUND BROADCASTING)

Mr, Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Speaker desires me to say that he has selected the amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and Nottingham, West (Mr. English) for discussion and for separate Divisions if required.
The amendments are: In line 20, leave out from 'Committee' to end of line 13 and insert
'shall be charged with the appointment of a Manager of Broadcasting Operations, to supervise the preparation of the signal supplied to broadcasting organisations, and the compilation of the records of broadcasting material retained by the House'.
In line 24, at end insert—
'That it be an Instruction to the Committee to set up, prior to any further broadcasting of proceedings, a House of Commons Broadcasting Unit akin to the organisation of the Official Report (Hansard), which shall supply signals to the broadcasting authorities or other broadcasting organisations or persons'.

7.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): I beg to move,
That there shall be a Select Committee to give directions and perform other duties in accordance with the provisions of the Resolution of the House of 26th July 1977 in relation to Sound Broadcasting and to make recommendations thereon to the House:
That the Committee do consist of Six Members:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time:
That Two be the Quorum of the Committee:
That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before them and any Memoranda submitted to them:
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with expert knowledge either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity relating to the matters referred to them:
That the Committee have power to join with any Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting that may be appointed by the Lords:
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House until the end of the next Session of Parliament.

In view of what happened in the last debate I am grateful and relieved that it will be possible to come to a vote this evening. Of course it is right that we should consider not only the motion but the alternatives suggested by my hon. Friends.
There has been some criticism of the delay in introducing broadcasting, particularly in the light of our failure to reach a decision last time. Some hon. Members have been blamed for this. I should make it clear that I do not seek to blame anyone or to suggest that efforts are being made to put off broadcasting yet again. Perhaps for the first time in my life I was in agreement with today's editorial in The Times which I was glad to see. It is important that we should consider what The Times said:
So the motion comes up again today when there will also be an opportunity for the Commons to pronounce on the idea of a broadcasting unit. It is neither a frivolous nor a wrecking proposition. It has been put forward by all but one of the committees that have recommended the broadcasting of Parliament.
A little later in that editorial I was delighted to discover that The Times was supporting the Government's motion. It is right to get on the record that we do not argue that there is anything frivolous or that this is an attempt to delay broadcasting again.
I recognise that hon. Members on both sides were placed in a difficulty last time. Many of them were not opposed to broadcasting but they could not vote for it without the parliamentary oversight which they seek. They are entitled to their view. No doubt it will be deployed again tonight. All I hope is that we come to a decision—whatever that decision may be—which will enable broadcasting to begin after Easter. That is the timetable that we envisage.
Since the last debate I have endeavoured to achieve a compromise which will be acceptable to most hon. Members. It is not an easy matter. The House is conscious of the need to protect its interests. I have done my best to meet these arguments.
The new motion makes far more specific the right of the Select Committee to report to the House at any time and on any relevant matter. I believe that it had that right under the old motion but there should be no doubt about it. More


importantly we have put a limit—if the House agrees—on the life of the Select Committee until the end of the next Session.
What I am saying to the House today is—put the joint Select Committee's recommendations to the test but not on a final and permanent basis. I recognise that we are on fresh ground. I cannot and do not attempt to guarantee that we have got it absolutely right. I understand that we cannot instruct the Select Committee to report at the end of that time, which will be about 18 months, but I should be surprised if it did not want to do so. Of course the House would take notice if at the end of that time it considered that some alternative form of oversight was necessary, and we should have a chance to reconsider the matter. For now, I am recommending to the House that we accept, with modifications, the Joint Committee's proposals which will ensure the independence of the broadcasters and protect the interests of Parliament.
This is perhaps where I enter into rougher waters. I wonder what the alternative of a parliamentary unit would achieve apart from heavy capital expenditure and administrative expenses which the BBC and the IBA are prepared to meet themselves. What would its function be? Is the suspicion about editorial control justified?

Mr. John Mendelson: I hope that the Minister will assure us that no precedent is set for any future argument involving the possible televising of the House of Commons. I hope that he will stress that point.

Mr. Price: I shall come to that at the end of my remarks.

Mr. Michael English: The Minister has asked a rhetorical question. He and I know what can happen in those circumstances. The answer to his question is to be found on page xv of the "Ben Ford Committee" which states:
The Joint Committee was advised that copyright in the clean feed' would rest with the originator of the signal; under the Joint Committee's proposals this means the BBC.
In the original Committee chaired by the late Lord Bradwell it was that which

caused it to recommend a broadcasting unit and that the copyright should remain with the House.

Mr. Price: I recognise that there is a dispute about this. My own view is that the copyright would remain with the House and must remain with the House. I shall deal with that at the end of the debate at greater length. That is my initial understanding. There is a dispute which should be cleared up before a vote is taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) feels strongly about whether the broadcasting unit should be involved in selling the proceedings of Parliament or in recouping some of the finance. He believes that there is a lucrative market for this and that the BBC is likely to acquire substantial sums of money.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend said that I believed that there was a lucrative market. I refer him to the Driberg Committee which quoted from the BBC's statement that the demand from other organisations at home and overseas was likely to be substantial, to be varied and to grow. The suggestion comes not from me but from the people who are resisting my suggestion.

Mr. Price: That Committee reported a long time ago. There has been another Joint Select Committee since then. I think that there will be a great demand, but whether people will be prepared to pay large sums is a different matter. Maybe my hon. Friend is right, but I doubt it. We give no instructions to anyone. I hope that the Joint Select Committee will keep that matter under close scrutiny and at the end of this period judge the matter and make recommendations if necessary.
I turn to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). His proposal has certain attractions and it appears to be a reasonable compromise between those who want a full unit and those who do not. I believe that he has sought a solution that will be generally acceptable, and I am grateful to him.
My concern is that we shall be cutting across the authority of the Select Committee to reach its own decisions. This is a clear and specific instruction. The real


difference between my hon. Friend and myself is not so much one of principle as how we achieve it. I believe that if we are to set up a Joint Select Committee, we should leave it to that Committee to appoint advisers and to fix their terms of reference.

Mr. Philip Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend accept that where we take issue with him there is that accountability should be decided in principle by the House. not after the Select Committee has made its report?

Mr. Price: The Select Committee will be reporting to the House and the House will make its final decision. There is a genuine disagreement between us here. Only the House can decide. I think that we have reached a fair amount of common ground so far, but I had a sneaking suspicion that we would part company here. I fear that, much as we should have liked a totally amicable agreement, it will not be possible. My hon. Friend will have to put his amendment to the House. and we shall accept the decision of this Chamber. I believe that if we set up a Joint Select Committee, we should leave it to that Committee to decide which proposals it wants to implement, how that should be done, whom it wants and the terms of reference of that person or persons.
The arguments are well known. We have been round this course a number of times. I do not want to detain the House for very long. We now have to come to a decision not on principle, because that has been decided, but on the narrow but important issue of how we protect the interests of Parliament. That is what the debate is about and, as I understand it, very little else.
Much depends on whether we trust the broadcasting authorities. It may be that I am more trusting than is good for me. Perhaps others are too suspicious. I can only judge the matter for myself. I believe that television and radio coverage of our proceedings is remarkably well balanced and objective and has been for many years. I think that Fleet Street has a good deal to learn from the broadcasting authorities.
I know that there is a view that this is the thin end of the wedge and that—I come now to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone

(Mr. Mendelson)—we are paving the way for television without any more oversight than is suggested in the motion. I recognise that is a valid fear that needs to be dealt with in specific terms, and I shall try to do so. However, that just is not so. I think that my hon. Friend was right to raise that issue, but I am certain that most right hon. and hon. Members see real differences in the way that we should handle those two matters. If televising of our proceedings were one day to come, I am sure that the House would want to give that matter very careful consideration. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied with that assurance. This is not the way in for television without the kind of oversight that I suspect both he and I would want.
We are suggesting that there should be a trial period, that we should keep the matter under constant review and that, at the appropriate time, we should review the way that it has gone. If it were then clear that changes were needed—God forbid that I should still be in this job, but with my luck it is possible—I should not hesitate to ask my right hon. Friend to authorise me to recommend them to the House. For the moment, I am asking the House to give our proposals—those of the Joint Select Committee with the changes that I have explained—a chance to work. The House will in due course make the final decision.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Our debate on the Government's motion to set up a Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting on 26th January revealed considerable discontent among Members on both sides of the House, and it became clear that it would be unwise for us to reach a decision that evening on the issue as presented by the Government. I am glad that the Government have seen fit to initiate a further debate and that the Chair, in its infinite wisdom this week, has seen fit to call the amendments standing in the names of the hon. Members for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and Nottingham, West (Mr. English). The Government have, as the Minister explained, changed their motion in two important respects which certainly make it more acceptable.
That there is a need for a Select Committee has been made clear by the Second


Report of the Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting which refers to a number of outstanding problems, such as copyright and the use of material in different contexts. A watchful eye needs to be kept on the use of broadcasting material, because the line between entertainment and information and news programmes is not as clear as is often supposed. Material can be used out of context to the detriment of the House and its Members. There is need for continuing vigilance. So far I think that the majority of Members will be in agreement. There are, of course, those who have a complete and absolute faith in the broadcasting organisations and do not believe that a Select Committee is necessary. I do not share that view. I believe that a Select Committee is necessary.
It is when we come to deal with the advisability or otherwise of the signal being originated by the broadcasting authorities or a broadcasting unit under the direct control of the House that disagreement arises. The Second Report from the Joint Committee, in paragraph 13, page viii, states:
Previous Committees have differed in their views on this question.
The BBC and IBA also differ in their views. The arguments for a broadcasting unit are reasonably summarised in paragraph 15 on the same page, and to my mind they are not totally disposed of—not by any means—in the succeeding paragraphs.

Mr. William Price: It is true that there was disagreement between the BBC and the IBA, but I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the disagreement arose because the IBA did not want to meet the capital cost.

Mr. Roberts: I understood that there was rather more to it than that. Perhaps that will become clear during the debate.
Although the microphones in the two Chambers are to be controlled by Tannoy staff responsible to Officers of the two Houses, we shall be dependent for the origination of a clean feed on the staff of one broadcasting organisation—namely, the BBC. We recently had the experience of the staff of that organisation failing to televise the opening of Parliament on account of an industrial dispute. Such

failure is less likely if the signal is originated by a compact broadcasting unit responsible to the House and supplying both the BBC and the IBA. At least, we would hope that there would not be a total failure.
We must also bear in mind the variety of demands for a clean feed.

Mr. John Mendelson: On the last point, judging by the disappearance of Hansard at not infrequent intervals, the guarantee proposed by the hon. Gentleman would not exist.

Mr. Roberts: I think that the disappearance of Hansard has been due not to the journalistic staff—namely, the originators of the copy—but to the printing staff. That is precisely why I suggest we should have a broadcasting unit that is responsible to the House.
We must also bear in mind the variety of demands for what is known as a clean feed. We know that the Press Association requires one. There will be other demands, possibly from newspapers, some possibly arising from the Government's conclusions on the Annan Committee Report and future development in the cassette and other spheres of communication.
It is true that the Select Committee should be consulted on these fresh uses, but I believe that the Joint Committee and the Government have underestimated the demand, the use and the financial value of the commodity of which they are so ready to dispose simply for the cost of signal origination. If a broadcasting unit were to be established and copyright of the material vested in it, I have very little doubt that it would cover its costs in no time at all. As for the point made in our last debate about costs in general, the source of payment, be it the unit or the BBC which originates, will be the taxpayer, who is almost synonymous with the listener-viewer.
There should not be any delay in broadcasting the proceedings, because I am sure that the BBC would be prepared to second staff to the unit for a time and transfer equipment to it, pending the full establishment of the unit and the purchase or hire of the equipment.
It seems to me that the authors of the Second Report were at that time quite


properly dominated by financial considerations and the need for speedy decisions. In the event, the Government have not shown the same anxiety for a quick start to permanent broadcasting, and it is now clear that investment in a broadcasting unit could well pay for itself in view of the extensive use that will be made of transmissions, not only at home but in the foreign services.
However, the main argument for the unit remains—that control of broadcasting should be vested in Parliament and that the exercise of that control should be before rather than after transmission. I would envisage that permission would have to be sought for broadcasting prior to the broadcast itself, or the repeat of material, or its re-use in a context different from that of the original broadcast. I do not envisage that the Select Committee could deal directly with all such requests, although ultimately it would be responsible for dealing with them. The Select Committee could only deal with the most doubtful things referred to it by the unit controller or manager. I need not hasten to add what has been asserted again and again in the Committee—that the existence of a broadcasting unit does not imply any editoralising on its part at all. Its function would be connected purely with a supply of a clean feed.
The amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Derby, North, I agree, is a very clever one, but he talks about supervision of the preparations of the signal supplied to broadcasting organisations. I hope that if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Derby, North will explain to us precisely who is doing the supplying. His amendment implies the existence of a broadcasting unit of some kind.
There are hon. Members who wish to amplify some of the points which I have touched upon and make fresh points of their own. Therefore, I shall take up no more of the time of the House, but simply urge the House to take the long-term view of the decision that we shall arrive at today. If it does that, it will follow the example of the Canadian Parliament, which has its own unit for broadcasting, under its direct control. We shall, of course, be establishing a precedent, which is bound to affect the decision of the House if the matter of televising the pro

ceedings is raised again, as, no doubt, it will be. Should the House ever agree on that, the utmost care will have to be taken, because it is very easy to make a mockery of this place with television cameras.
The Government's argument that we must make haste to broadcast and make changes in the light of experience makes some sense. There is method in their madness, one might say; but, personally, I am sorry that we are starting on what I regard as the wrong foot. I am sure that we shall have to change step before we are much older.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) has said. I thought that his analysis of my amendment and that of my hon. Friends pointed clearly in one direction. I will take him up on that.
I share more than some of his opinions. I also share in part his professional background in broadcasting. It is with that in mind, and identifying as much as any hon. Member of the House can with the broadcasts without as well as within, that I say this in all due seriousness.
I know precisely the worries of many broadcasters outside this place about the approach which they say hon. Members have brought to the debate. They say "Here are self-important, pompous, egomaniacs in the House of Commons once again attempting to impose some form of censorship on the reporting of their proceedings. Here we are, back in the days of 1771 and the debates about the admission of the Press to our proceedings." This is a fundamental misreading of what is intended in my amendment and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).
What we are attempting to do is to ensure that the House takes tonight, with all due speed, its decision about acountability and where that accountability lies. We are not satisfied with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Price) that the Select Committee, whatever its membership may be, shall at some later date take these decisions in trust for the House. We think that the House of Commons should tonight decide the means, having willed the end.
As one who has campaigned for the end for many years and who looks forward to some future Parliament voting for the admission of the television cameras as well, I want to see speed as much as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby. In view of his friendly overtures, I wish to respond in kind and say that my amendment is an attempt to find common ground between the two imperatives in the debate. I refer first to the imperative of haste because of the massive expenditure and the need to get started within the lifespan of this Parliament, which will not be much longer. Secondly, I refer to the need for accountability which has been raised by almost all of the Committees except this large rather curious Joint Committee. I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford), but the last Joint Committee got out of step with every previous expression of a parliamentary viewpoint on how accountability should be exercised.
So we have those two needs and we have to resolve them. My amendment is an attempt to do precisely that. Almost all Back-Bench opinion which has been expressed in these debates, where hon. Members have come to the debates speaking for themselves, having thought about the matter, rather than expressing the view of this or that organisation that has briefed them—there is no harm in that, but I am talking about the House of Commons view as it has emerged—has been to the effect that some form of broadcasting unit is needed. They do not speak in the obscurantist spirit of the last and most archaic parliamentary assemblies, which is wholly resistant to change.

Mr. William Molloy: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that ultimate power should be held here because some sections of the media even find it offensive that we should have a view ourselves about how Parliament should be broadcast?

Mr. Whitehead: I agree with him particularly about the editorial in the Sunday Times. I did not mind the one in The Times today, but the Sunday Times a week ago seemed to express outrage that hon. Members were at all concerned about the question of control over the origination of the unit. If one couples

that with the occasionally intemperate claims of some broadcasters that all this is very unreasonable and over-fussy we have a right to express some indignation, because once the decision is taken tonight it is my contention that there will be no going back on it. Let the Select Committee decide as it wishes. Unless the House gives a direction tonight, it will be very difficult to turn around on this matter.
Let me now revert to what I was saying. The drift of parliamentary assemblies in the Western world is in the direction which is suggested, broadly speaking, by the amendments. In the last few months the two countries on the other side of the Atlantic which have a far greater exposure to and penetration by the electronics media—Canada and the United States—have both discussed, and in the case of the Canadians have introduced, television as well as radio.
The matter of how this shall be done is under intense argument in those countries, and I want to take a minute or two to explain how it is done there to illustrate to hon. Members that our concerns are in no sense uncommon even when one considers societies that are much more accustomed to, as we would say, the intrusion of the electronic media than is the British parliamentary scene.
The Canadian House of Commons maintains its own broadcasting unit. It has its own producer, and he is responsible to the Clerk of the House. All the personnel of the unit are employees of the House. They have been recruited or seconded from the CBC and other broadcasting organisations. The House owns the equipment, and the news organisations may use the service for their own purposes. There is no attempt to censor it, and in many cases edited extracts or the live feed on cable television is used extensively throughout Canada. There is an all-party broadcasting committee supervising the operation, which is rather like the Select Committee proposed in the motion. The Canadians, after due thought, have come to more or less the conclusion that every previous Select Committee before the Joint Committee has recommended and the one that is in principle put forward today.
The United States House of Representatives is also considering the introduction of radio and television into its proceedings. For those of my hon. Friends,


such as the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) who are averse to national television, I say that they might find some reinforcement in the initial reaction to the test in the United States Senate. I understand that something called "the racoon effect" has been observed amongst those hollow-eyed Members who are seen under heavy lighting. Indeed, Representative Shirley Chisholm, of the Black Group of Congressmen, said that under the lighting system that is used black Members of the House disappear altogether. We do not have that problem here.

Mr. English: Not yet.

Mr. Whitehead: I use that as an illustration of the fact that, were we to be grappling with the matter of television, more would be at stake than the simple question of censorship, which is how the media tend to present it.
I now consider whether the broadcasting unit as proposed, and more particularly the role of the manager of broadcasting operations as I have envisaged in the amendment, would be an instrument of censorship. I emphatically refute that, It seems to me that the over-insistence, both in the paragraph that has been quoted of the Joint Committee's report, and in some of the speeches in the previous debate and this one, on the roving commission of the Select Committee, on what it might do, on its need to come back to the House, on its need to report, or its ability ex post facto to investigate how broadcasting is being carried out, indicates a profound uneasiness on the part of the Joint Committee on the question of accountability which has so far been left unresolved because it took the path that it did in abjuring any notion of a broadcasting unit.
I see some dangers in a Committee of hon. Members who are looking only after the event at the broadcasting operation, who are constantly urged by their colleagues to look at this and that matter of which they do not themselves have any personal recollection, and who will then open up a whole can of worms. That is a problem, I accept, because we have taken this route, and can only amend it and not alter it and go back on first principles, that we must have a Select Committee.
To those who suggest that we are advocating censorship by keeping accountability within the House of Commons I say that we are not and that there are more possibilities lying along the route of an amateurish unadvised, irresponsible Select Committee than from the kind of professional advice of the experts, in the service of the House rather than of the news editors and broadcasting organisations, that I suggest in the amendment.

Mr. William Price: My hon. Friend referred to amateur and unadvised members of the Select Committee. The motion makes allowances for advisers to be appointed.

Mr. Whitehead: I shall come to that in a moment, because the precise powers of the Select Committee to appoint officials or advisers, if we were to leave it to the Select Committee as the Government suggest, is a point at issue between myself and those who think like me and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr, English: Does my hon. Friend agree that the wording of the motion, in so far as it permits advisers, permits them to be appointed on a part-time basis at the current hourly rates agreed by the Treasury for other advisers of Select Committees, and has no relation to any permanent employees?

Mr. Whitehead: I am subject to correction and further intervention, but I understand that substantially to be the provision. If the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to intervene and say that it is not, he is at liberty to do so.

Mr. William Price: I am much more likely to intervene and say that it is. I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the House if, without getting up too often when a point of this importance arises, I might be permitted to deal with them as we go along rather than seek to catch the eye of the Chair a second time.
I have taken advice on this matter, and there is a difficulty here. I want the House to be clear about this, because I do not want it to be alleged against me that I have misled hon. and right hon. Members. Some hold the view that the Select Committee could appoint people—because there is no mention in the motion


of full-time or part-time staff—and that it could decide the terms of reference and the title of the broadcasting manager. Others take the view that the Select Committee could not do that.
My advice is that if the Select Committee runs into any difficulty at all, it will come to the Clerk of the House with a recommendation. The Clerk of the House will take advice from the Services Committee, and particularly from my right hon. Friend, and I can say on behalf of the Lord President of the Council that we would support any proposal that came from that Select Committee. But there is a difficulty, and it is right that we should consider it.

Mr. Whitehead: What my hon. Friend has said reinforces the reservations that I have about leaving this matter to the Select Committee, in spite of the handsome undertaking that he gave at the end of his intervention. Many of us fear that if this is handed over to the Select Committee, whatever the personnel of that Committee, the Committee might be hamstrung by the kind of professional advice that it gets—I should say advice from officials of the House, and so on—as to what is in order for it to do and what is not.
It is the contention of myself and some of my hon. Friends that if it is an instruction from the House to that Select Committee that it shall appoint a manager of broadcasting operations and he shall be the instrument of the accountability to the House, no one can stand in the way of such a decision. I think I am right in saying that it is for that reason that have phrased the amendment in the way that we have, because we are alarmed by the notion that in these times of financial stringency it will be said that Select Committees can appoint advisers, that they can appoint people to do all these curious things which are mentioned—such as the elucidating of matters of complexity in line 12 of the motion—but they cannot do what we submit is necessary, namely to maintain a continual relationship with the broadcasting operation and a measure of supervision of it.
We believe that the operations manager should be more than a professional consultant brought in from time to time if Members of the Select Committee hap

pen to believe that in any circumstances the broadcasters are having them on. That is the expected effect, but it is not what we want.
We want to see the operation of the manager used essentially as a small scale broadcasting unit. The hon. Member for Conway asked me to explain what I meant about the powers of the broadcasting operations manager. That is the essence of it. The operator of the microphones in the Chamber is an employee of the House. Not 100 yards away from here we have the sound origination unit. It has been set up at considerable cost, and there is absolutely no reason why that unit should not be under the control of the operations manager. Whether those who staff it are appointees of the broadcasting operation, are seconded to the House, or are those whom the Select Committee decides should be appointed by the House is a secondary consideration. The question is, who has the ultimate accountability? We think it should be with the operations manager.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West has raised the question of copyright. This is very important and it was a matter which decided the Driberg Committee that there should be a broadcasting unit. It is my understanding that, whichever of the three solutions offered to the House tonight is adopted, the copyright remains with the House of Commons.

Mr. English: I should be glad if my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North would give me the assurance that he understands by the amendment that this should be so. However, the Joint Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) thought the opposite and specifically stated this.

Mr. Whitehead: rose—

Mr. William Price: If I may answer that point, I think I got this wrong before. The Joint Select Committee came to the view that, as things stood, copyright would in fact rest with the originators—the BBC—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] As I said, I got it wrong, and when one is wrong one gets up at the earliest opportunity and says so That is what I am doing. The difficulty here—and I have


consulted on this point—is that if we cannot find anyone on the Joint Select Committee in whom we can vest this authority, we have a problem. Whether it should be the Commission to be set up by the Bottomley Committee is a matter which the House should look at tonight.

Mr. Whitehead: I think that that is a further reinforcement of my case that there is a need to proceed with caution. It must be made quite clear to the special Select Committee when it is set up, whether or not it has the powers that I am suggesting, that it acts on the presupposition that copyright should remain with the House of Commons unless an overwhelming argument can be made against it.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: This is a very important point, and I am glad that the Minister has clarified it. It is set out on page xv of the Second Report. Does the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) not agree that copyright must be vested in some part of the House or some institution set up by the House of Commons, otherwise the material emanating from this place for a broadcast can be used again and again in different contexts without any hon. Members or the House as a whole having any control whatsoever over its dissemination?

Mr. Whitehead: I think that is substantially true. However, hon. Members should get it into their minds quite clearly that much of the material originating from this Chamber and from any other part of the Palace of Westminster that might be broadcast in future will be used over and over again. It will be edited again and again, and used in snippets as well as in long broadcasts. That is right and it is the way it should be.
That is not our quarrel with the broadcasters. It is our contention that there must be a master version of what is said against which any such broadcast could be compared, because there may be allegations of malpractices in the use of the tapes.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Perhaps my hon. Friend would clear up another matter. It is clear that a lot of material will be used over and over again and will have an echo effect. Will that depend on the initial broadcast by the unit being picked up by people at home

on cassettes? If a broadcast is not substantially broadcast at all, will it be possible for a member of the public to obtain a cassette or a feed-off from the archival tape?

Mr. Whitehead: It would be open to a Member of Parliament to ask for a check of the original sound tape in exactly the same way that many of my constituents write to me and ask me whether what I was quoted as saying in the "Daily Slurge" was really what I said. I then look my speech up in the Official Report, check what I said and send them copies of Hansard to see what the speech looked like in context. It should at least be possible for a member of the public to have that opportunity when the House is broadcast.
My hon. Friend is also asking this question: if a debate is thought to be of importance by members of the public but is totally ignored by the broadcasting organisation and is sought by outside agencies, will it exist or not? Will it be put on the record and prayed in aid? Yes, I think that this should happen. That is why I think that there should be a master tape of the proceedings. I do not think that we have yet taken a decision on the broadcasting of Committees upstairs.
There is a problem about the question of other uses to which the material may be put. If one allows one organisation to become the originator, lay claims to the copyright over the material and say that because it undertook the initial capital outlay it should decide what is or what is not history in the sense of what is recorded, the recording of material must have another arbiter over and above that organisation. I should like to think that a member of the public or a smaller broadcasting unit could have that kind of access. This might be one gesture to the pluralist philosophy of the Annan Report. I look forward to the time when there will be more broadcasting outlets, because this is very healthy in a democracy.
However, the more outlets there are, the more problems arise. The question arises whether those who have had no part in the origination of the material may get fair entry into the proceedings.

Mr. Ben Ford: Is my hon. Friend aware that part of the


contractual agreement between Parliament and the broadcasters on the clean feed archival tape was that it was important that the records should be made available for research and that hon. Members and the public should have access?

Mr. Whitehead: I am aware of that, the role of the manager of broadcasting operations, to whom I shall now revert and upon which subject I shall conclude, is partly envisaged with that in mind—for the preparation of the archival record, and clean-feed tape, or whatever. At least as important is the transient uses which may be made of this tape in other areas. I say this as somebody who has been involved for all his professional life in the compilation of historical documentaries. How often do we go back to records—to the old newsreels of the 1930s, to such records as survive, to radio broadcasts of the fireside chats, and so on, of the 1920s and 1930s—only to find that what is deemed to be important now and what with hindsight appears to be the most important part of the record was entirely disregarded by the predominant communicators of the time?
With that in mind, it is essential that we pay at least as much attention to the compilation of our records for the benefit of future generations rather than this business of keeping them for one year, as has been suggested up to now.
That, then, is the case as I put it for the appointment of a manager of broadcasting operations, both to apply a measure of professional control to the whole operation when it gets started and also to act as in one sense an arbitrator between the present and the future claims of all those, including our constituents and constituents' children, who will have some claim upon this material in the future.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: At long last a glimmer of light seems to be appearing at the end of this broadcasting tunnel. I only wish that we had been able to make further progress 10 days ago when we started this debate. However, we continue it today and it centres round an immensely important point, which is

whether it is necessary to have additional layers of protection for Parliament in the control of the radio wave that goes out from Parliament.
I remain unconvinced of the need for a parliamentary unit even after the debate of 10 days go and listening here this evening. I believe, first, that it could postpone broadcasting even further than has been the case up till now. It could postpone broadcasting because the unit will require staffing. It could postpone broadcasting because, whether or not either of the amendments on the Order Paper is carried, it will require a relationship to be built up between the Select Committee and the broadcasting unit or the manager of broadcasting operations. I hope that we shall get broadcasting of our proceedings quickly and efficiently.
Secondly, I do not believe that it is necessary, because it seems to be putting an additional expense on the Exchequer in an unnecessary way considering the good offer of the BBC to take on the task.

Mr. Whitehead: On the licence.

Mr. Rathbone: Whether it will influence the extent of the licence fee request that will come through the BBC one of these days remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen how the BBC plans to manage radio broadcasting in the future, anyway. This will be a very small part of whatever plans the BBC has.
The proposal for the unit is unnecessary and unattractive because it seems to be yet again an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. It is inserting some professional people—they are described as professional; I am sure that they will be professional people—as a buffer state between the operations of the House and the equally professional people who will be dealing with the live feed within the broadcasting companies.
The proposal will be worrying also from the aspect of career development of the people who might go to make up this broadcasting unit or fill the role of manager of it. It is interesting to conjecture who the manager would be either in the context of the amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) or in the context of the amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman should tell us the name of his candidate.

Mr. Rathbone: I would not think of suggesting any candidate, but I could characterise three different sorts of individual. It could be somebody who was seeking to further his career by appointment to this managership. This would surely indicate, though, a quick move back from this position into the live world of broadcasting outside, probably just as he had started to learn the ways and the mannerisms of the House. He would therefore be lost just as he was, as it were, coming on stream to full effect. That would certainly be the case with somebody who was coming here to further his career, because he would have to go back to the outside world in order to improve his responsibilities and his pay.
Secondly, it could be somebody who was opting out of a career. In such a case we should not get the quality of person we wanted in an area where quality must tell crucially, not only in terms of technical expertise but also in terms of judgment and character.
Thirdly, it could be somebody who had reached a pinnacle in his career. If that were the case, we should either have running our broadcasting from the House a tired old man of broadcasting outside, or we should have somebody who would come into this position and become a tired old man of broadcasting inside the House. I cannot for the life of me find out any other characterisation for the manager of this broadcasting unit or the people who might make up such a broadcasting unit should we set it up.
I referred to the subject of copyright in our debate in July of last year. It can either be, as already, with Parliament, as the Parliamentary Secretary suggested, though I think that suggestion might be withdrawn later in the debate, or it can be vested in Parliament by a simple Act of Parliament, as suggested in the Committee's report. Either way it is not necessary to have a parliamentary unit to overcome whatever difficulty may exist in the ownership of the copyright of parliamentary proceedings.

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman said that something is suggested in the Committee's report. Will he direct us

to the reference? Already in this debate we have referred to page xv, paragraph 42, of the recent report which said:
under the Joint Committee's proposals this means the BBC
would have the copyright. I do not understand where the hon. Gentleman gets the idea that the Joint Committee said that it was vested somewhere else.

Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me, as he misunderstood me in July of last year. The Committee said that copyright might vest with the BBC.

Mr. English: It did not propose it.

Mr. Rathbone: It did not propose it. It later proposed that copyright could be vested in the House of Commons by a simple Act of Parliament to vest it in it. I cannot put my finger on the reference now, but during the course of the debate I will try to find it and perhaps catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or intervene in the hon. Member's speech.
It could be a specific task of the Select Committee to ensure that the copyright in the broadcasting of the House rested with the House.
The most important point of the broadcasting unit is its need as a control mechanism—not, of course, control of editorial, which has correctly been denied by the hon. Member for Derby, North, but for technical control the preparation of the signal, whatever that may mean.
I believe that it is right to correct an assessment of the BBC's impartiality which was given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) 10 days ago. He used as support of the BBC doing this job our trust in the BBC's impartiality. I am not absolutely sure that that is a trust which is shared by all of us when it comes to the reporting character of the BBC. But I believe that the technical abilities of the BBC would be absolutely impartial, as was shown during the successful experiment many moons ago.
I do not believe that, as the hon. Member for Derby, North suggested, the Select Committee's role would be affected by the Committee's relationship with its advisers, any more than it would be affected by its relationship with the manager of the broadcasting unit or any part


of the responsibility identified in the motion. I believe that, rather, the Committee could exert the necessary supervisory control, arm's length control, as a watchdog for Parliament, and we could avoid the need to set up a unit.
I add a final rider. As other hon. Members have said, it is necessary, in the light of the experience of radio broadcasting, to keep an open mind on the need for a parliamentary unit if television cameras are brought into the House. It has been the experience in other legislatures that a parliamentary unit is necessary in those circumstances, and it may be even more necessary here because of the habit in this place of speaking from where one sits. With a camera's roving capacity, which is essential for the proper coverage of business, it could rove in the wrong direction and give the outside world a mistaken idea of what was going on.
We are discussing a clean feed of the radio broadcasting of the House. I hope that we can quickly get on with it and hand that responsibility to the Select Committee on our behalf.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: On the occasion of the immediate past debate, I had to remark upon the fact that it was impossible for the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Lord President, that we should be able to debate and vote on the issue of a parliamentary unit, to be carried out. That was through no fault of his own. I should like to say how grateful I am that it can now be carried out. We should be able to reach a conclusion on the whole issue tonight.
In spite of the beliefs of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), I was advocating broadcasting the House before the hon. Gentleman even entered it. 1 was on the first of the two Select Committees that advocated broadcasting and advocated a parliamentary unit. There have been various Select Committees, but for practical purposes most people who have studied the subject would agree that the Driberg Committee and the one chaired recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) are the two main Committees on the issue. One recommended a broadcasting unit and the other recommended that there

should not be such a unit. That is precisely why the Government motion will not do, though it will do to the extent that we all want some sort of committee to continue—I would not say "to supervise", as the hon. Member for Lewes did—to be concerned with this issue.
When the House is presented with two Select Committee reports it is no good our saying that we shall set up a Select Committee or Joint Committee to recommend yet again on the question whether there should be a broadcasting unit. It is time the House made a decision on which of the two Select Committees' views it accepts.
I think that on the basic issue there has been almost deliberate obfuscation by interested parties. There is no question in this context of the House wishing to exert editorial control, except in so far as, irrespective of whether we have a broadcasting unit, it is stated by both the Driberg Committee and the recent Joint Committee, and accepted by the broadcasting organisations, that broadcasts should not be used for the purposes of satire. I think that the Driberg Committee said that broadcasting should be used for bona fide purposes. Whatever the phrase, everyone accepts and knows what is meant. Therefore, in so far as there is any editorial control by the House in the negative sense, it is already agreed by the broadcasting organisations.
However, I suggest that if there is no parliamentary unit, any editorial control can be exercised in the negative sense by the originator of the feed—the BBC. The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) said that the Press Association might want a feed. It is entirely possible that the BBC would accept that the Press Association should be given a feed free. I hope that it would, but there is nothing in the motion to say that the BBC should do that, that the BBC, the possessor of the copyright under the Joint Committee scheme, should give away free its copyright in part to the Press Association.
One could imagine circumstances in which the feed did not go out to other organisations from the BBC, as the originator. One example was given by the hon. Gentleman, who said that ITV did not broadcast the opening of this Session of Parliament because the BBC had an industrial dispute. That sort of


situation does not seem entirely reasonable.
Therefore, any editorial control—if one should call it that—is likely to be negative and not positive. On the Driberg Committee we wished to see as many people in this country as wanted it to have the feed free. We said, for example, that we would not refuse a university or club that wanted it free. It was not merely a question of its going to broadcasting organisations. I am not sure how my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that this is done. There seem to be no assurances that the feed will be given free to any legitimate person in this country. I do not think that the matter is mentioned in the Joint Committee Report.
I said earlier, in seeking to correct my hon. Friend, that the view that there would be a "substantial demand" for saleable rebroadcasting or for rebrodcasting by foreign organisations of broadcasts of this House was put in evidence by the BBC to the Driberg Committee. In its evidence to that Committee it spoke of a substantial demand, but I accept that in its evidence to the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North it spoke of a "small demand". The difference may be because in the first case the BBC was discussing the possibilities of television and radio whereas in the second it was discussing radio alone. Nevertheless, the BBC's view has mysteriously changed in 12 years from a "substantial" to a "small" demand.
Nowhere in the BBC's memorandum is there mention of what would happen to any money it obtained from the sale of any tapes. We are entering a different technological age, and are talking not merely about the sale to, say, Mutual Broadcasting in the United States, which is primarily a radio company, but the sale of cassettes to any reasonable person in this country wanting a taped copy of a debate. Why should not such people have copies? They can obtain copies of Hansard. If the Daily Telegraph refused to print a report of a debate, anyone who was interested could obtain a copy of Hansard from the Stationery Office. Where does the report say that people will be able to go to the BBC, which is getting the feed free, and obtain a free cassette of a broadcast of a debate? If

it is said that individuals should not obtain cassettes free, what shall we do with the income of the BBC, or whoever else receives such income? None of these questions seems to be spelled out and answered.
I do not wish to see editorial control by the BBC exercised in this respect. I should like to give an example. Through the grace of the Services Committee, we now have in the House a machine capable of showing us a videotape of a broadcast. It is said that we may obtain certain videotapes. Hon. Members will recall that a few weeks ago there was a famous set of interviews with Sir James Goldsmith. I asked for a videotape, but it was not provided and still has not been provided.
What will happen if ordinary, honest citizens want a copy of our proceedings, not in the form of a print of Hansard but in the form of a cassette tape? My view is that they should be able to receive it at a reasonable fee and that that fee should go towards the cost of providing it.

Mr. Ford: If my hon. Friend looks at page xvi of the Second Report he will see that paragraph 44 says that the Joint Select Committee should consider the question of setting up a trust in which should reside the copyright of the clean feed archival tape. My view is that Parliament, a Department of Parliament, a public information department, should be able to take advantage of this to disseminate or disperse clips or cassettes for the benefit of the public.

Mr. English: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for spelling that out. What he says is quite true. Paragraph 43 says that the Committee can
see no pressing advantage to Parliament in possessing … the copyright".
Paragraph 44 says:
The Joint Committee considers however that Parliament may wish to possess the copyright of clean feed tapes preserved permanently in the archives.
Paragraph 37 talks about:
the retention … for a period of one year of a full master tape …
In other words, my hon. Friend is suggesting that at some indeterminate time in the future, if the Select Committee so decides, the copyright of the tapes may be taken


away from the BBC in which, under paragraph 42, it is to be vested. It is suggested that the copyright may then be vested in some body yet to be set up and then the recordings may be sold to the public.
What happens if I want a tape tomorrow? At the moment I can get Hansard on the next day. I do not have to wait two or three years for this long and complicated process. Nor do I have to rely on someone deciding whether a recording is to be kept in the archives. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that his Committee's report has covered my point.
My point is that all questions of editorial control at this stage are vested, in a negative sense, in the owner of the copyright, namely the BBC. I trust the broadcasting organisations in the sense that I trust them to do what they have said they will do. I am sure that they will share the feed with, for example, Independent Radio News. They have said this and I have no reason to suppose that they will not, or that IRN will not share the costs. No one disputes that. What we are doing is asking whether those who hold the copyright will be equally generous with every other person in the United Kingdom. Or will they say "No, we shall give you something only if you pay for it, and if you pay for it the money comes to us."?
I shall deal with the technicalities of copyright although I do not think they are of any great importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) has made it plain that if his amendment is carried he believes that it would be expressing the will of the House that the copyright should be vested in us. I believe that my amendment would have the same effect. On that basis I would be prepared to accept my hon. Friend's amendment. I would withdraw my amendment only if I received an assurance from the Government Front Bench that, should my hon. Friend's amendment be carried, it would be interpreted in that way.
The technicalities set out in the Home Office memorandum were, it seems, designed for a particular set of circumstances. We all know what they were. We all know that 18 months ago the Treasury did not want to pay. I will

not go into what I said in the last debate, but under the Driberg proposals it was obvious that a considerable amount of capital expenditure would be required of the Exchequer, together with a considerable amount in running costs. That would have been partly recouped from any sales of the resulting material. But we would have given the results free to the broadcasting organisations. We all know that the Treasury had a great desire to cut public expenditure 18 months ago. I do not blame it for that. In certain respects I was one of its supporters, although I disagreed with some of its proposals.
The Home Office memorandum and the other memoranda on the purely legal point simply stated the difficulties of vesting copyright in anyone. One difficulty is that the House has no legal personality. That is in itself arguable, because, as I recollect it, A. P. Herbert once prosecuted this House and it is necessary for there to be a legal person before a prosecution can be mounted. A. P. Herbert prosecuted us for keeping our bars open after the normal licensing hours without the authority of any Act of Parliament permitting us to do so. The prosecution was held and the person who defended the House of Commons, then treated as a personality, was the Attorney-General. If the House can be treated as a legal person for the purposes of a criminal prosecution, I think that most lawyers would regard it as a legal person.
It is said that the House of Commons is not a corporate person. It is also said that we can do various things with this copyright. That is the point. It can be vested in the Bottomley Commission, when my right hon. Friend produces the measure which he has promised us for this Session, setting up the Bottomley Commission. The copyright can be vested in Mr. Speaker. We can do as Hansard does. The Hansard copyright is vested in the Crown. The Controller of the Stationery Office, by common tradition, can allow people to quote from Hansard. He is the man who controls the copyright, which is vested in the Crown. I do not mind the copyright being vested in the Crown in this context. I do not see the situation being any different from that of Hansard in that simple respect.
I do not think that we can rest upon technicalities. I would be prepared to withdraw my amendment if we can have


a ministerial assurance that, in the event of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North being passed, it would be regarded as expressing the will of the House that copyright should be vested in this House, the Crown, or some equivalent body, such as I have mentioned.
The important point ultimately centres on this issue of copyright—around money. It can be put in the old Northern phrase that "You don't get owt for nowt." The original Driberg proposal was that we should spend a certain amount of money in producing the clean feed and that the broadcasting organisations would spend a certain amount of their money on editing it as they thought fit. If there were ally proceeds from sales, they would be split. We did not even specify how the money would be split, because we assumed that as reasonable men, especially if we had the copyright, it would be easy enough to negotiate that matter later, as is usually the case.
We have heard about precedents. Here is one. I would suggest that one good row in the House of Commons, where someone lifts the Mace and uses it to hit someone else over the head, is probably more saleable abroad than the average episode of "Upstairs, Downstairs". Lord Grade makes about £15 million a year profit for ATV, mainly by the sale of programmes overseas.
However, the main issue here is, in simple terms: who owns these tapes? The Joint Committee, in paragraph 42, states quite clearly that
under the Joint Committee's proposals this means the BBC".
In the Driberg Committee's proposals it was equally clear that the copyright would be vested in the unit, the House of Commons, the Crown, the Speaker—however one cares to put it—but not in the broadcasting organisations. Owning that and retaining that on behalf of the Exchequer—because it boils down in some respects to money and not to editorial control—we would give it away free to the broadcasting organisations to use in this country as they thought fit, but we might well give it to people other than broadcasting organisations, such as colleges and universities. But people who wanted to use it for their own profit should pay some sort of royalty to the

copyright owner, namely, to the Exchequer, which had paid for it.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has quite rightly emphasised money in the context of copyright, but there is also, surely, the wider theme in copyright, namely, that the owner of the copyright controls the use. The hon. Gentleman will know that when he does his broadcasts for the BBC he does so as the result of the contract between himself and the BBC. In this case there would be no contract, and he or any other Member of this House could exercise no control whatsoever on the use that might be made, not necessarily by the BBC but by some subsidiary user, of the material produced from this place.

Mr. English: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I think that it has been said that if it is not controlled through copyright it could be controlled, even if someone else possessed the copyright, because a resolution of this House of Commons has the force of law, in that it can be dealt with under the law of privilege of this House. I do not think that we need go into that.
I have already stated what I believe to be the main issue here. The difference between the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North and my own amendment is minimal.
I am amazed that the Sunday Times, which floated this idea, should feel that we have some dark desire to infringe editorial control. It has perhaps forgotten that the original Driberg Committee was chaired by a journalist and that it included, apart from my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for the Environment, a publisher, the late Mr. Brian Batsford, and sundry other people with knowledge of the media and so forth.

Mr. Robert Cooke: There is nothing "late" about Mr. Brian Batsford, who is now Sir Brian Batsford, and lately a Member of this House.

Mr. English: I am sorry. That is correct. It was the late Lord Driberg who was the chairman.

Mr. William Price: I am getting confused and would like to put a question to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). If the


amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) is carried, shall we not have vested two groups of people with the right to originate the signal?
I go back to the motion, which said that
The British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Broadcasting Authority … be authorised to provide and operate singly or jointly sound signal origination equipment for the purpose of recording or broadcasting the proceedings of the House ".—[Official Report, 26th July 1977; Vol. 936, c. 539.]
Have we not already decided this matter? If we pass the amendment, shall we then have two lots of sound origination? How does my hon. Friend view the position in that respect?

Mr. English: If the Minister is assuring us that that is correct, then no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North would wish to withdraw his amendment and allow mine to be pressed, because I am assured by the people who have vetted my proposal that it does not have the effect that the Minister has stated. I am sure that in principle my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North and I are at one, whatever the terminology of our respective amendments.

Mr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend will recall that my amendment specifically says that the role of the manager of broadcasting operations shall be
to supervise the preparation of the signal".
The preparation of the signal will be in terms of the resolution previously carried by the House.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North indicated that the intention of his amendment is that the House, or some body other than the broadcasting organisations should have the copyright. Am I quoting him correctly?

Mr. Whitehead: The House.

Mr. English: I am quoting my hon. Friend correctly. If either my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend on the Front Bench will give us the assurance that, if that amendment is carried, they will accept that that is its interpretation—even if it might be worded technically in some way so as possibly to nullify that intention—and that the will of the House is

to take the copyright away from the BBC, then I do not think that there need be much more discussion tonight. Most of us can probably get into the Division Lobbies and vote on the issue.

Mr. Douglas Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is obviously drawing his remarks to a conclusion. However, he has not dealt with a point that is of great concern to a few of us who think that the broadcasting of the proceedings of this House is extremely important for its future influence in our society. We have been very dismayed by the way in which the argument has dragged on night after night. We see in the hon. Gentleman's amendment—possibly wrongly, but nothing that he has said has in any way discouraged this belief—yet a further layer of debate, discussion and delay. It seems extremely important that we should not delay the start of this vital experiment, even though at a later stage, in the light of experience, we may have to change the way in which it is done.

Mr. English: I thought that it would help the House if I did not repeat what I said on the last occasion. However, very briefly, let me say that I then made the point that 13 years ago, I think, I was the first person in this House to raise the question of its proceedings being broadcast and to get the old Publications and Debates Committee, which turned into the Driberg Committee, dealing with this subject. We made a recommendation some 12 years ago. The delay has not been on my part. The recommendation of a broadcasting unit has always been generally accepted. It is even accepted—if it were the will of the House—by the BBC. It was advocated in the memorandum to the Joint Committee by the IBA. The delay was caused by setting up yet another Select Committee, the Joint Committee chaired by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons).
I do not think that the Driberg Committee was packed by anyone. It had a considerable membership of both sides. For example, only three Labour Members were on the Joint Committee. Two of them were Ministers and one was a Back Bencher. One of the former was a Whip and the other was my hon. Friend who is now on the Front Bench, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office.

Mr. William Price: This matter needs to be dealt with. I think that my hon. Friend will take it from me that in the initial stages the Member concerned was not a Whip. She was appointed a Whip during the sitting of that Committee. It was not packed in the early stages.

Mr. English: I see. She was made a Whip after she was put on the Committee. "It was not packed in the early stages." I accept my hon. Friend's statement, as do we all. We never dream of disputing his words, which seem quite precisely to make the point.
However, if the Joint Select Committee had not been set up and if the principles enunciated by the earlier Select Committee had simply been put to the House, we could have had radio broadcasting years ago. If it had not been put initially as radio and television, we would have had radio broadcasting 10 years ago. Therefore, to throw a charge of delay at myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North is to choose the wrong targets.
To be quite blunt, different Governments of different parties have had different views at different times on this issue whether they wanted the proceedings of this House broadcast. Sometimes they have played hot and sometimes they have played cold. But just because one suddenly arives at a point at which one has a Government who are playing hot—and I hope that Conservative Members will do so as well and at which there is a reasonable coincidence of view, that does not mean that one should suddenly do it in the wrong way just because for 13 years various people—not including myself or my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North—have been delaying it.
However, I think that that has been a deviation from the main point at issue. I have stressed the money side, perhaps a little unduly, because I think that others have stressed the editorial control side and have suggested dark and devious motives for the House of Commons that do not exist. I do not know what anyone suggests can be the methods of editing a feed when one has said that one is going to send out the whole feed for others to edit, even if it were done by a broadcasting unit. The only editing that could be done is in the negative sense—by the originator of the signal, if it were the

BBC, preventing other people from having a copy to use for themselves. Indeed, I believe that technically the BBC now possesses copyright of its own broadcasts which to a considerable extent prevents other people from using them.
What we want is a simple statement from the Government Front Bench that if either of the amendments is carried tonight the Government Front Bench will finally accept that the copyright should rest with someone on behalf of this House, or the Crown in the general sense, rather than with the broadcasting organisations. If the Minister will say that, there is very little to argue about.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: One would hardly believe that it is nearly 20 years since the late Aneurin Bevan almost casually in a debate on the Gracious Speech remarked that he felt that this House should be televised. That remark caused a great debate throughout the country. One would have thought that at least within a decade this proposal would have been under way.
Listening to the various points that have been made about the intricacies and legalities of tapes and recordings reminds me of the story of the person who had explained to him the make-up of another person's watch. He was told that it had two hands, a main spring, a fly spring, so many rubies and diamonds, and that the case was made of silver. Yet the original question was simply "What is the time?"
We are behaving in a similar manner while ordinary folk outside are asking themselves why it is taking so long when all they want is to be able to switch on the wireless and listen to a debate in the House of Commons.
I fear that if some of the debates on this issue had been taped, no one would switch on at all. It would have been so boring. Part of that has been caused by the appalling attitude of some sections of the media which have suggested that the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) in some way implies that there will be a form of censorship or control over what is broadcast of what is said in this House.
The only thing that frightens me is the prospect of having something like a programme which lasts about 15 minutes


called "Today in Parliament". If a programme has caused a great deal of trouble and strife for Members of Parliament, it has been that one. On the other hand it can be classed as a pioneer. That is a proper accolade to give it.
Here we are discussing how we shall set about letting the ordinary folk of this country have the right—which I believe they want—to switch on their wireless sets and listen to speeches and debates in this House. Many of the arguments about apprehension and concern can apply to any programme that is being broadcast at this moment.
All sorts of arguments are going on to the effect that when a person buys a gramophone record he is not allowed to tape it. Similarly, if a person listens to any programme, either from the independent broadcasters or the BBC, he must not record it. Does anyone believe that much notice is taken of those arguments? Nonsense. Of course people record programmes, because they want to listen to good music, pop music, or whatever.
I believe that in some respect we are making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill. We have arrived at the position of perhaps giving some credence to the saying that if Moses had formed a committee to discuss the crossing of the Red Sea, the Israelites would not yet have made the crossing. We are in a similar position today.
Let us consider the essential feature of this debate which is, I suggest, the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North. When I read it, I was not completely convinced. However, this is one of those rare occasions when it is of paramount importance to hear the speech of the hon. Member who has put down the amendment and, on the basis of what my hon. Friend said, I shall support his amendment.
The amendment should in no way be judged as a criticism of the BBC. In this House, outside it and in other countries as well, I have always been proud of the role which the BBC has played in the past 50 or so years in maintaining a high level of civilised broadcasting, which is recognised throughout the world as being probably the highest standard ever achieved. However, as with every other

human organisation, the BBC has its faults, and some of us in this House are amongst its biggest critics. Some of us believe that the Press exists only to print our speeches, and we apply much the same thinking to the BBC. When we switch on, many of us believe that we should hear political discussions in which we have been involved. I suppose that that is human nature as well.
However, one of the attractions of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North is that it could be argued "Why the BBC?". Why should it not be the IBA or ITN, or an amalgum of them all? If anyone put forward that argument, it could not be countered. Therefore, it seems to me that, even though there might be some difficulty in adopting my hon. Friend's proposal, it would not result in any form of censorship and editorial control along the lines suggested by some parts of the media.
If we in this House agreed, as I hope we shall, to my hon. Friend's amendment and there was the faintest suspicion that we were thereby establishing some form of censorship or editorial control, there would be the biggest bust-up that this House had ever seen. In their heart of hearts, those in the media who have made this suggestion know that that would happen and, indeed, they would make their own contribution to smashing such an organisation if it ever became a reality.
On the general aspect of administration, I do not think my hon. Friend's suggestion is a bad idea. After all, we have other managers. We have managers of our caterers, allegedly. We have managers of the people who keep this place warm. We have managers of all kinds in the Houses of Parliament. Why should not we have a manager of broadcasting operations, with the necessary technicians and experts to back him? Incidentally, such an arrangement would have the one great advantage that those involved would know that they were not temporary and that they could not be recalled by some high official of the BBC to be transferred, without knowing who exactly was their boss. When it is said that the House of Commons will be their boss, that is a way of saying that it will be the people of this country who are their boss rather than any other form of organisation.
We should not be frightened of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North. A joint Select Committee on the subject will contain Members of another place, and in the end we shall arrive at the traditional compromise that is normally reached in this country. I hope that that compromise will soon be reached in the traditional way. We shall then be able to deal with the matter of tapes and who should be allowed to borrow them or to make recordings. The people who sit at home recording Beethoven symphonies, pop shows and all the rest of it will be able to tune in to this House. The only thing that will deter them is the fact that we take an unnecessarily long time to arrive at a decision. Let this debate be an example of the way in which the House of Commons gets on with things.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North has put forward a reasonable proposition which is not very much at odds with what has been proposed by the Front Bench. It should be applauded as a reasonable compromise. That will take us a step nearer to what we want—that our people should be able to hear what is said in this House to enable them to take a closer interest in the proceedings of this democratic institution.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I am prompted to intervene in the debate solely by the speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). I am often in the position, as is the hon. Gentleman, of being a debater of these topics. However, this evening I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, nor do I agree with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). Let me say briefly why I take that view.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North mentioned what the British public will want to do. He said that they will want to tune into the proceedings in this place and listen to a full day's proceedings from Question Time until midnight. I must put my dilemma to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. I must inform him that if that happens I shall face a great conflict. Because I read Hansard in bed at night, I shall be faced with the prospect of also having to listen

to the House of Commons proceedings on the radio.
I do not think that the public will want to switch on to the House of Commons proceedings as an alternative to a pop concert or a Beethoven evening or some other entertainment. The public want, as was proved by our sound broadcasting experiment, to be able to hear this place at work at certain times. They want to hear us debate matters, ask Questions, hear what is said in statements, and they want that material to be condensed by the editors of the sound broadcasting organisations. As was proved during that experiment, the public want flesh and bones added to the mere printed text which we are able to see in the heavy newspapers.
The debate is not about the fundamental question of what people want to hear or whether they want to hear Parliament broadcast; it is about the methods that will be employed—employed with some speed now—to get the show on the road, to get something happening. The House decided long ago that it should happen. There was public endorsement following the experiment. There has been acceptance of the idea. After initial reaction against it in the first week, it subsequently came to be accepted as a good experiment and something that should continue.

Mr. Molloy: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not thinking that I was suggesting that all that will be heard on British radio when our proceedings are broadcast are our proceedings. I had in mind that all sorts of subjects are debated in the House and that some issues are so obscure that there is hardly any interest in them. However, there is always someone in this island who has an interest in whatever subject is raised. There is always a small minority. The rest of the nation might wish to listen to a pop concert or a play, but a small minority might desire to listen to something that is close to their hearts and of interest only to them.

Mr. Crouch: I accept that as a fair contribution. It is a question of how that small minority can get access to what might be called the signal. After the broadcast the records will be in the archives. How can they subsequently be


used? There are provisions to ensure that the debates and records of events that take place in the House may be used only in certain circumstances. The provisions are designed to ensure that they cannot be used in any circumstances.
There are limitations on the use of recorded proceedings of this place in programmes of political satire. It has not been stated that they cannot be used. However, if a programme of political satire is to be constructed, reference must be made to the Select Committee to ascertain whether permission will be given. I believe that that is fair. It is not so much censorship as saying "We have an idea, we want to use it, and we shall put it to the Select Committee to see whether it is agreeable."
I hope that the Select Committee will be liberal in its approach. I hope that it will not mirror the image that we had cast by the BBC in its early days of being somewhat "Aunty" in these matters. It is on the whole question of the Select Committee's operation that I wish to say a few words.
There are two amendments on the Order Paper and the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), with all his experience, knowledge and professionalism in the business, art and science of broadcasting, suggests and proposes in all sincerity in his amendment that we would do better to superimpose on the Select Committee, above the Select Committee, around the Select Committee and within the Select Committee a professional manager of broadcasting operations. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head in disagreement, but that is the only way in which I can read his amendment.
The relationship between the Select Committee, Members of Parliament and persons outside this House is extremely important. I should not like to do anything to introduce another tier of protection, as it were, around the Select Committee. That is wrong. Of course, we have managers within the Palace of Westminster for many of the functions that are performed within it. Reference has been made to catering. That is a very different business from broadcasting. There is catering provision for outsiders and insiders such as Members of Parliament, Clerks—in fact; the whole of the staff.

That is a very different function from the signal of our proceedings and the spoken word in Parliament. That is not something for which we need a manager. A manager should not be allowed to come in here for that purpose, no matter how professional he may be.
By all means let us have professional advice. The Joint Committee recognised that that had to be considered, and it came down on the side of saying that we should be able to appoint the appropriate professional persons from time to time. I do not know, but it may be that that would be in perpetuity. However, I am cautious about the idea that the House should appoint a manager within or around the Select Committee. In that way I can see the Select Committee finding itself somewhat detached from the problem. There would be a feeling that it was not professional enough in itself. Various issues could be left to the manager because it would be thought that the manager knew best. Or perhaps the manager would not get on too well with the BBC, the IBA or the IRN. I do not want such a relationship to develop.
I want a relationship to develop between the Select Committee and Members of Parliament directly responsible for the marshalling of the signal that goes out from this place. I want the Select Committee to do this without superimposing upon it anyone who takes on extra responsibility. This is what I understood that the hon. Member for Derby, North was advocating. I do not understand why he advocates that if he does not want a professional person there and does not believe that the members of the Select Committee can safeguard our interests.
I think of the Select Committee as being similar to those on procedure and privilege. I do not see it as being similar to the nationalised industries or public accounts Select Committees which need professional advisers. I want it to have the status and stature to provide the essential link between what is said in the House and those who broadcast proceedings.
I am not unhappy that the signal should become the copyright of the BBC. I understand that that was accepted by a resolution of the House last July and that it would cover the IBA as well. The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford), who was Chairman of the Select


Committee, nods his head. I am not concerned that copyright should be vested with those two bodies. That does not worry me. I should be more worried if I thought that the controlling body that has to make these difficult decisions, respond to submissions from outside, consider whether mistakes had been made and whether there was a just complaint about the condensed version were not the Select Committee. By all means let the Committee have access to technical advisers and experts in the art of broadcasting. But I want the Select Committee to be above the advisers and to deal direct with the broadcasting associations.
Both hon. Members who have tabled amendments are advocates of the broadcasting of Parliament. We want to get on with the job. It is important that it happens under correct control, not under a control that might be in the wrong hands.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. John Roper: I declare an interest as a member of the General Advisory Council of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, although it is not relevant to the debate.
I should not be supporting the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) if I thought that it would delay the introduction of broadcasting. But I make a distinction between the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North and the additional instruction contained in the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).
The setting up of a House of Commons broadasting unit would delay the introduction of broadcasting. On the other hand, the appointment of a manager could be done within the six weeks that remain between today and the time when we see the first signal sparking after Easter. If there were any delay, it would be a matter of days rather than weeks.
I shall return later to the point made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) about the character of the manager. His intervention raised some interesting issues. I confess that since the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) regaled us about his reading of

Hansard in bed I have looked forward to his turning to his cassette recorder when the size of Hansard becomes too great for him to manage in his bedroom. Therefore, I felt that he should be compensated for one or other unfortunate decision—at least unfortunate in his mind—that the House took 10 days ago.
We have a responsibility as trustees of the House to ensure not merely that this is done but that it is done properly. Therefore, we need to look carefully at the two questions at the centre of the debate: first, the question of the manager or, indeed, of the broadcasting unit suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West; and, secondly, the question of copyright.
The hon. Member for Lewes suggested three characteristics of individuals who might apply for the job. To my mind, they seemed somewhat unfair when we consider the authorities responsible for the signal for the Open University, because they are not altogether dissimilar. They have found people from broadcasting to carry out the technical and managerial functions. It does not seem that people doing that job in any way correspond to the characteristics or caricatures portrayed by the hon. Member for Lewes.

Mr. Rathbone: I look forward to checking whether the hon. Gentleman is right in his characterisation of the Open University as I shall be paying it a visit tomorrow morning. I am interested that he should feel that he can find anybody with anything like the characteristics that I described within six weeks. Surely the quality of person we want will be subject to at least three months' notice with his present employer.

Mr. Roper: The hon. Gentleman suggests three months. I assumed that it could be done in six weeks. In any case, we could consider starting and the appointment could follow when the decision had been made by the House to go ahead with broadcasting.
I turn now to the role of the individual, a matter referred to by the hon. Member for Canterbury. There is a difference between the function that we are asking the Select Committee to undertake—to consider points of principle that may come up from time to time—and the ongoing


supervision of a technical nature regarding records that we are asking the manager of broadcasting operations to undertake. I do not see the conflict that the hon. Gentleman suggested might exist between the role of the Select Committee, which will be an ongoing central function on points of principle, and the role of the manager, who will have a technical day-by-day function which will be essential in order that we have some control by an official of the House over what is done.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that if we were to accept the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North we would conflict with the resolution of 26th July. I do not think so. The sound signal origination would still be the responsibility of the broadcasting authorities, as we agreed on 26th July. According to the amendment, we should be appointing
a Manager of Broadcasting Operations, to supervise the preparation of
those operations.

Mr. William Price: Does not that mean that copyright would still remain with the originator of the signal—the BBC? Is that not where we get into difficulty?

Mr. Roper: I shall deal later with the question of copyright. I am now dealing with the relative functions of the manager or supervisor and the Select Committee.
I turn to the question of copyright, the second major question that we are considering today. I confess that I am confused by the latest intervention by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West, that, if the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North were accepted today, he would interpret that as meaning that copright would come to the House. That was my understanding of what he said earlier, but I shall have the chance, as he will, to read Hansard tomorrow morning.
The matter of copyright is something about which we are still extremely unclear. I think that the hon. Member for Canterbury will agree that, in spite of what was said in the Joint Committee's

report, whatever may or may not have been agreed by the resolution of 26th July, if we fail to pass the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North tonight there will be an urgent requirement for the new Joint Committee to prepare an early report to the House clarifying the question of copyright. The more that I have heard tonight from my hon. Friend, the more I have felt there is a great deal of confusion in a number of minds, including those on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. William Price: I very much support that idea and hope that that will happen if the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) is lost.

Mr. Roper: I was trying to say, after my hon. Friend's last intervention but one, that it seemed that it would be necessary if it were carried. If it is not carried, I am very glad that we shall have the support of the Parliamentary Secretary in urging the Joint Committee, when it is set up, to prepare a report to the House. I hope that he will then ask the Leader of the House to provide an early opportunity for the matter to be considered by the House so that the question of copyright can, if possible, be cleared up before transmissions begin. I am glad to have that assurance from him.
This is a critical and important decision for us. It has been said by many people that the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House is of great importance for the future of Parliament. I hope that the decision taken tonight will ensure that we have effective supervision by the House, acting through one of its Officers, in the traditional way in which it has operated in other spheres in the past.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The House has decided that its proceedings should be broadcast in sound radio, subject to satisfactory arrangements. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and I are concerned that the proposed sound broadcasting should be of the highest quality and represent fairly the work of Parliament as a whole. I feel that that would be the wish of the whole House.
The BBC has been mentioned in the debate as the originators, but it would be acting only as the agent of the House. If the IBA had been prepared to do this job, it could have been given it. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford), who was Chairman of the Joint Committee, agrees. The IBA could be given this job in the future.

Mr. Whitehead: The hon. Member will, of course, wish to remind the House that in its memorandum, which is Appendix 6 of the Joint Committee's Report, the IBA says in paragraph 2 that it would still prefer the creation of a parliamentary sound unit.

Mr. Cooke: I shall come in a moment to the question of the unit and the hon. Gentleman's helpful amendment. I am not shaken in my belief, nor does the hon. Member wish to quarrel with the proposition, that the BBC would be acting as an agent of the House and that some body such as the IBA or the IRN could become an agent in the future. Furthermore, it is not for the BBC to decide what is done with the signal except when it is broadcast on the BBC. The House or the Select Committee will have to decide on all other matters, except that under the proposed arrangements the IBA will automatically get its signal from the BBC.
I do not want to go too far into the hypothetical, but it was mentioned in the debate and it must be a fact that should the BBC have an accident such as the non-broadcast of the State Opening of Parliament, to which so many looked forward in this Jubilee Year, the Select Committee, with its responsibility for the sound signal from this place, would be free to get somebody else to do the job.
A Select Committee is proposed, and it can sit jointly with the Lords. We believe that this Select Committee can provide the important, essential, administrative framework within which sound broadcasting can become a useful extension of the means by which the work of Parliament reaches the world outside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) is most impatient that this new service should become a reality with all speed. I think that the general will of the House is that, having made its first preliminary decision, if we are to have sound broadcasting it should be

come a reality with all reasonable speed. But many hon. Members who are not fully confident that a small, powerful Select Committee, however distinguished in its membership—and here I should perhaps pay tribute to the expert knowledge of the hon. Member for Derby. North (Mr. Whitehead) and perhaps even suggest that the Select Committee that is proposed would not be complete without his name amongst its members—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: He was kept off the last one.

Mr. Cooke: It is not for me to respond to that interjection, but I shall be surprised if what has been said about the hon. Member for Derby, North in this debate falls on deaf ears. If, when the membership of the Select Committee appears on the Order Paper, the House considers the list to be unsatisfactory, it can, I am advised by our procedural experts, debate, name by name, the personnel of the Committee.
The House feels that perhaps this Select Committee, however distinguished, even with the benefit of the membership of the hon. Member for Derby, North, cannot on its own account ensure the success of sound broadcasting. I think that the hon. Member for Derby, North made a valid point when he said that the Select Committee would be able to deal with problems only after they had occurred. That was one of his main arguments, and the point has been made by many others.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that a broadcasting manager would be able to act as an indispensable link between the Select Committee, as representing the House, and those broadcasters—whether the BBC or the IBA—whom the House allowed to come in and send out our proceedings via sound radio.
I sense that both those who are fearful of the unknown future and those who favour sound broadcasting, or even television at any price, draw together in assenting to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Derby, North, because it neither imposes a deadening bureaucracy nor leaves the Select Committtee unarmed.
I hope that I can help the House on one or two points of detail. We have the benefit of the Chairman of the Joint


Committee here. I was privileged to serve with him and to try to unravel many matters, some of which remain unresolved, and that is why the Select Committee will have work to do in a number of respects.
Unless the Parliamentary Secretary disagrees, I assert to the House that the clean-feed archival tape—I use the hallowed words of the Select Committee's Report—will be kept by the House in a special archive department in the Norman Shaw building, where also there will be permanent accommodation for the broadcasters—temporarily in No. 1 Bridge Street and permanently in Norman Shaw. In addition, in that building there could be such other persons as the House or its Select Committee decides.
It is the duty of the Services Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve, to solve all the problems thrown at it by the House, and if the House decides to pass the amendment and this official is to be appointed, there need be no delay from the Services Committee in finding him a suitable berth close to the job that he will have to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has not as yet intervened in my speech. Before he does, perhaps I should emphasise that this is an important point as well as being one of those happy domestic exchanges that we often have. The important point—I should emphasise this, and I know that the Minister will confirm it—is that the printed Hansard will remain the official record of the House. Any sound archive, however hallowed, has not the standing that Hansard has and will have. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury is safe in his bed with his Hansard, because that is the Official Report of the House.
On the point about copyright, whatever it says in the report, the BBC and the IBA—if it is responsible—are simply the nominal copyright holders. If this is indeed the case—and there seems to be some obscurity here—and if the House so desires there would be no difficulty in vesting copyright in the House. The Government can easily provide the time to pass the necessary resolution or short piece of legislation. The Minister might like to publish that in Hansard.

Mr. William Price: Will the hon. Member see that this comes from the Select Committee as and when it is set up?

Mr. English: No. Let us decide it now once and for all.

Mr. Cooke: There would be no harm for the Government not now to give the Attorney-General's view of the law. We know that cannot be done and that, in fact, it might make it all the more obscure. But if the Select Committee thought that there was any difficulty over copyright, the Government would have the means by which it could be resolved.

Mr. English: Will the hon. Member go further and recognise that we have had two Select Committees, one saying that the House, the Crown or some institution, other than the broadcasting organisation, should have the copyright and the other saying that it should rest with the BBC? It is time that the House made up its mind once and for all. Will the Government carry out the will of the House on this matter?

Mr. Cooke: I do not want to act as a referee between the House and the Government. The second Select Committee view about the BBC was purely for convenience. Clearly the House would wish to have command of its sound output so that it could be used for purposes that the House approved. Supposing that the House of Commons Library wanted, in the course of providing educational material, to use the sound track of the House, it would be right and proper—if the House wanted it—that this should be done without any difficulty over copyright.
Members of the Opposition will make up their own minds individually on this matter, as on all other House of Commons matters, but let us hope that, given the chance, we shall take another step forward—here I clash with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury—not towards getting the show on the road because very few people feel that way about broadcasting our proceedings, but towards the sound broadcasting of the balanced picture of the work of Parliament as a whole.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I had not intended to speak but I have attended


all the debates on this matter during the past few years, and I wish to take up some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke). He referred to the fact that the whole House would agree that if the BBC were not in a position to be in charge of this unit, the IBA could well take charge. That remark suggested that everyone was happy about the possibility of the IBA taking charge. It was even suggested that if there was a strike, as there was on the last occasion when Parliament was due to be screened, the IBA could take charge in these circumstances.
I want to put on the record the fact that the argument about commercialism versus the BBC may be dying on these Benches. I have noticed from many motions which have appeared recently that many hon. Members on this side seem to think that there is little difference between the two. It may be that the political complexion of the personnel on the IBA and those on the BBC does not differ. I assume that they must take a very conservative attitude towards politics, and that comes across in the news items.
However, there is a big difference in the way in which the organisations are run. The IBA is based upon commercial output. I have no doubt that its decisions on political matters, in particular, are influenced by the commercialism of its stations, just as with newspapers—Tory newspapers in the main—the reports are dictated by the advertisements they receive. When Alistair Burnett reads the news at 5.45 p.m. each evening, I do not doubt that he is reflecting the views not of Alistair Burnett, which are very Right-wing Tory, but also in part the views of commercialism as against what would be the BBC attitude.

Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Gentleman should be corrected on both those points. The Royal Commission on the Press and the Annan Committee have denied that advertisers have any influence on the editorial content of newspapers or on the editorial reporting of television.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman should just consider the composition of those Royal Commissions and many others, including the Select Committee whose report we are debating. The

Select Committee that brought forward this proposition did not have among its membership any members of the Tribune Group.

Mr. George Gardiner: Thank God for that.

Mr. Skinner: That Select Committee comprised what the House likes to have represented in the consideration of all these matters—consensus views. The same is true of the body that considered the question of State aid for political parties, which we shall be considering later. The membership of that Committee, too, contained a number of consensus men. That is why these bodies reach these decisions. I am not surprised that the Royal Commission on the Press and certain other bodies have reported that there is no bias. The very fact that these bodies are so comprised means that they are bound to reach such conclusions. They have a vested interest in saying that everything is fair and that everybody is getting a fair crack of the whip.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I support what the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Skinner) is saying. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) to the strange situation of the Daily Mail and its advertising of Debenhams, a matter which was pictured on the television screens not so long ago. At one stage Debenhams withdrew its advertising from the Daily Mail because it had a critical report, but more recently the Daily Mail has carried vast advertising by Debenhams and has withdrawn criticism which has appeared in other sections of the Press.

Mr. Skinner: That is bound to happen. There are many other examples.

Mr. Max Madden: Would my hon. Friend care to add to the list of examples of interference with the freedom of the Press the activities of the new proprietor of the Daily Express who, as he will know, has most extensive interests and is busily engaged in writing memos to a number of senior executives and reporters in Beaverbrook Newspapers telling them what they may and may not publish?

Mr. Skinner: It is now part of a giant concern known as Trafalgar House Investments. I will not go into some of the


shady areas in which they are involved but it is bound to influence, as my hon. Friend says, what is written in that newspaper. That is why we see from time to time not only full-page advertisements for Japanese cars in these Tory newspapers but some so-called well-informed comment why the figures we see of our trade imbalances with Japan are supposed not to be trade imbalances or deficits for us. They go on to prove that in some obscure fashion Japan is doing us a favour by sending over 10 per cent. of the cars bought in this country.
The two things go together. Anyone on the Labour Benches who thinks that this is not true is kidding himself. I will bet that all hon. Members attending constituency management committees say the same as I am saying, but some of them when they get here—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could say something about the motion or the amendments.

Mr. Skinner: I entered this debate on the basis of what was said by the hon. Member for Bristol, West, who has a vested interest in this business. He spends a great deal of time in the place next to the television room upstairs. Anyone would think it was his own. He raised the question of the BBC's giving way to the IBA in certain circumstances. I am trying to point out that it is not like that, though some people will not accept it, because commercialism plays a part and influences what is written in newspapers, and will influence what happens in this instance.

Mr. English: It is only fair to say that the IBA would prefer a parliamentary unit rather than the BBC to be giving it the signal. The commercial interests in this case distrust the so-called non-commercial ones that would be securing a profit for themselves.

Mr. Skinner: I can well understand that. The IBA wanted a piece of the action. That is probably why it is influencing my hon. Friend, who has a vested interest in these matters. He is currently running a motion in the East Midlands to try to get another television organisation—

Mr. English: I have no financial interest, any more than my hon. Friend has.

Mr. Skinner: —to split up with ATV. Not content with the multiplicity of agents and organisations around the country, my hon. Friend wants more.

Mr. Whitehead: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because I think that I am not getting my due meed of character assassination as his speech proceeds. I am having a little difficulty in trying to construe from his remarks whether he is for the amendments or for the motion. I should like to know before he sits down.

Mr. Skinner: I am marginally in favour of any amendment—and it is marginally—first, because I believe in gritting up the works on nearly everything relating to the Establishment. It is not a bad idea to be suspicious, to be sceptical, about what the Establishment is doing. I usually start from that position.
Secondly, I do not want to see a Select Committee having autonomous control on its own. Although my hon. Friend's suggestion may not be one that I would automatically support and be delirious about supporting, it provides another layer of organisation which can perhaps to some extent influence what the consensus Select Committee will do.
Like the last one, the Select Committee will by and large agree with the Establishment of the day. I have no doubt that it will include father figures. There is already one here, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). Perhaps that is what he has come in for. There may even be a member from the Liberal Benches, to pacify the Liberals once again—another sprat to catch a mackerel. I can see the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), Mr. Wilfrid Hyde White, present. He looks like a possibility.
But there will be no mavericks on the Select Committee—that is for sure. There will be no one from the Tribune Group so that the Committee's content is balanced in such a way as to give us a fair crack of the whip. There will be members of the Manifesto Group for certain. Where is he? Has he arrived? I was looking for my hon. Friend the


Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wriggles-worth), who I now see present. He has a fighting chance of being on the Committee.
That is why I tell my hon. Friend that I am prepared to back his amendment, because it helps grit up the works and helps to ensure that the so-called all-embracing but narrowly constituted Committee does not have it all its own way.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West spoke about Hansard's being the Official Report and only an official report. He must be living in Cloud-cuckoo land if he believes that. When I voted for sound broadcasting of our proceedings and subsequently for televising them, if that happens, I did it in the knowledge that it would change the nature of reporting in this place. If the hon. Member thinks of someone with a tape taking down every word that is spoken in all its various accents, in context—not being altered afterwards, as some of them are when representations are made to Hansard—and still thinks that the Official Report will remain the same as it is today, he is way off beam. This proposal will change the nature of reporting and, although the hon. Member may want to give it its fancy title for ever and a day, the fact is that it will change the way in which our proceedings are reported. The position of Hansard within that context will change, too.
That is my contribution on this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has given me an opportunity to explain why I agree, not wholeheartedly but reasonably so, with the proposal to broadcast our proceedings. I look forward to seeing this come about in the relatively near future. I am terribly worried about the cost because this is happening at a time when mental health facilities are being withdrawn throughout the country because of cuts made by the Treasury Bench, mainly at the urging of Tory Members. We have to look at the amount of money that is being spent. Nevertheless, I shall support the amendment.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. William Price: I suspect that the House will now wish to come to a decision. It has been kind enough to listen to me once, and it has also been kind

enough to allow me to intervene on a number of occasions in the hope that I would be able to offer explanations that would expedite the debate. That has left me with very little to say. There has been a good deal of movement on both sides of the argument. Each side has moved in the direction of the other and I had hoped at the outset that we might have moved far enough to have reached a conclusion without a vote. It is now apparent that that cannot be done.
I must say one thing about the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). If it were accepted, I believe that we should be left with one body, the broadcasters. having already been given power to originate the signal and another body. the manager of broadcasting operations, who would supervise the origination of the signal. I wonder whether that is a feasibly administrative system. We are entitled to ask how and where would the line of demarcation and responsibility be drawn. I believe that the proposal would lead to friction, duplication and additional expense. As matters stand, copyright would remain with the originator of the signal, the BBC.

Mr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend will recollect, because he was on the Joint Committee, that it said in another context that the reporting of Committee debates should pass through the Hansard unit and should there be scrutinised by officials of the House. What is different in kind between that and what we are proposing for that which originates from the House?

Mr. Price: Whatever may be the difference, there will be confusion. The system I am suggesting is the one which the House ought to accept tonight, for a temporary period. In 18 months we look at this matter again, and, if it has gone wrong, we can deal with it. I ask the House to support the motion and reject the amendment.

Mr. English: Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I ask him to answer this point? If the amendment is carried, will the Government accept that the will of the House is to have copyright vested by whatever legal means is necessary in some body other than the broadcasters?

Amendment proposed, in line 20, leave out from 'Committee' to end of line 13 and insert:
'shall be charged with the appointment of a Manager of Broadcasting Operations, to supervise the preparation of the signal supplied to broadcasting organisations, and the compilation

Division No. 98]
AYES
[9.40 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Shepherd, Colin


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Skinner, Dennis


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hardy, Peter
Spearing, Nigel


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Heffer, Eric S.
Spriggs, Leslie


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Carmichael, Neil
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cowans, Harry
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dalyell, Tam
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Ward, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Madden, Max
Wells, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Whitehead, Phillip


Duffy, A. E. P.
Molloy, William
Whitlock, William


Eadie, Alex
Molyneaux, James
Wilson Alexander (Hamilton)


English, Michael
Monro, Hector
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Morgan, Geraint
Younger, Hon George


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Parker, John



Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. John Roper and


Glyn, Dr Alan
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworlh.




NOES


Armstrong, Ernest
George, Bruce
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Penhallgon, David


Bates, Alf
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Price, William (Rugby)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harper, Joseph
Rathbone, Tim


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, S[...] H)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Brooke, Peter
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Buchanan, Richard
Hurd, Douglas
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Canavan, Dennis
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Russell
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Crouch, David
Leadbitter, Ted
Thompson, George


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
McCartney, Hugh
Tinn, James


Dormand, J. D.
Maclennan, Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin



Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ford, Ben
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Noble, Mike
Mr. Ted Graham


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed, in line 24, at end insert:
'That it be an Instruction to the Committee to set up, prior to any further broadcasting of proceedings, a House of Commons Broadcasting Unit akin to the organisation of the Official

of the records of broadcasting material retained by the House '.—[Mr. Whitehead.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 53, Noes 64.

Report (Hansard), which shall supply signals to the broadcasting authorities or other broadcasting orgaisations or persons '.—[Mr. English.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 68.

Shepherd, Colin
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Younger, Hon George


Skinner, Dennis
Ward, Michael



Spearing, Nigel
Whitehead, Phillip
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spriggs, Leslie
Whitlock, William
Mr. Michael English and


Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop.


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wrigglesworth, Ian





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Armstrong, Ernest
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Penhaligon, David


Atkinson, Norman
George, Bruce
Price, William (Rugby)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Banks, Robert
Graham, Ted
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bales, Alf
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Harper, Joseph
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Brooke, Peter
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Buchanan, Richard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cohen, Stanley
Hurd, Douglas
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Coleman, Donald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Thompson, George


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Cowans, Harry
Kerr, Russell
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Crouch, David
Leadbitter, Ted
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
McElhone, Frank
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Dormand, J. D.
Maclennan, Robert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)



Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ford, Ben
Noble, Mike
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. James Tinn.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That there shall be a Select Committee to give directions and perform other duties in accordance with the provisions of the Resolution of the House of 26th July 1977 in relation to Sound Broadcasting and to make recommendations thereon to the House:
That the Committee do consist of Six Members:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time:

That Two be the Quorum of the Committee:
That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before them and any Memoranda submitted to them:
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with expert knowledge either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity relating to the matters referred to them:
That the Committee have power to join with any Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting that may be appointed by the Lords:
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House until the end of the next Session of Parliament.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the motion relating to the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting and the motion relating to Privileges may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Coleman.]

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (REPORT)

10.2 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move,
That this House agrees with the Committee of Privileges in their Third Report in the last Session of Parliament on the Recommendations of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege (House of Commons Paper No. 417), and declares that the Recommendations contained in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the Report, and those in paragraph 16 which do not require legislation for their implementation, shall have immediate effect.
I move this motion on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and the Privileges Committee because of the unanimous decision to put these proposals before the House for endorsement.
This matter arose as a result of disquiet in the 1960s about the functioning of the Committee of Privileges. It was thought by many people that the principles on which it was operating were not sound, that its administration and organisation were not correct, and that certain changes should be made.
Consequently, the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege was set up. It sat for a long time under the chairmanship of my right hon. and learned Friend who is now the Attorney-General. The Committee made a long, and I think good, report. It was good not just because it was full of wisdom, but because it was well written by my right hon. and learned Friend, who spent his summer holidays undertaking that task. It is a fine document.
There has been a long delay between the publication of the report in 1967 and the implementation of its recommendations. A few minor proposals have been implemented, but the major ones have not. There has been an 11-year delay.
That delay is a pity in one sense as many difficulties have arisen because the old system of privilege administration was not amended at that time. But we have had time to examine the matter again. We have thought a second time about some of the proposals that we then advanced, and we have changed our minds.
The first matter that we bring before the House relates to the desirability of defining in some way what is a contempt of the House. This is not an easy matter. A great deal of thought has been put into it over many years. The difficulty has arisen that if a loose definition is applied, Members will be encouraged to bring before the House for consideration by the Committee of Privileges all sorts of matters that are not worthy of consideration. On the other hand, if we have a definition that is too tight, we might restrict Members of Parliament from defending themselves when they try to do so in the interests of their constituents.
Therefore, we have adopted the view—we ask the House to accept it—that the definition should be extremely broad. It is not a new definition, but until now it has been acted upon only informally. We suggest that it is desirable that the House should now act on it formally.
The definition is set out at the bottom of page iii. It reads:
The Report"—
that is, the 1967 report that we now endorse, or this part of it—
recommended that the House should follow the general rule that its penal jurisdiction should be exercised (a) in any event as sparingly as possible and (b) only when the House is satisfied that to exercise it is essential in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its Members or its officers, from such improper obstruction or attempt at or threat of obstruction as is causing, or is likely to cause, substantial interference with the performance of their respective functions.
That eliminates petty, unimportant mat-terms that should not go through the machinery of the Committee of Privileges. In our view, action should be taken only in important cases when there is either actual or threatened obstruction of the House, or obstruction of Members in carrying out their duties as they conceive them.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am slightly worried that the Father of the House has referred to a definition. Surely what he has described to us are characteristics by which a situation can be recognised, which is something totally different from a definition. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that no one could agree that the phrase
in any event as sparingly as possible
has anything to do with a definition? Those words have to do with the employment of such action as the House cares to take.

Mr. Strauss: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows exactly what I mean. Of course it is not literally a definition. It is guidance. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I willingly change my words if he prefers.
In particular, the definition is guidance to Mr. Speaker so that he will be able to judge better whether a motion for consideration by the Committee of Privileges should have precedence. After that it will be guidance to the Committee of privilege itself, which might be able to say "This is so petty and unimportant that it should not be considered by us and go through all our machinery and that of the House". We propose that that the guidance I have quoted should now be formally accepted and endorsed by the House and should become the guidelines for Mr. Speaker and the Privileges Committee. It is, moreover, a similar definition to that established by Lord Phillimore in his report on contempt.
The next question is whether there should be a bar that would make it impossible for a Member to raise a matter of privilege when he has a remedy at law. Until now the view has been taken—it was the view of the 1967 Committee, which we are now trying to alter—that if a Member considers that he has a matter of privilege to raise—let us say that he has been libelled in a way that is damaging to him and to the House—and he has a remedy at law, he should not be able to use the penal jurisdiction of the House as well, or as an alternative. The Privileges Committee thinks that that is not right.
There may be instances when an hon. Member who has a remedy at law should

be entitled to seek the penal jurisdiction and protection of the House. One of the major reasons for that is that a contempt is not a contempt of an hon. Member but of the House. It would be wrong if the House were unable to act when an hon. Member contemplates taking no action at law. That would make it impossible for action to be taken by the House. We say that an hon. Member should be entitled to bring a matter before the Privileges Committee, even if he has a remedy at law, if he believes that the House has been brought into contempt.
The next change that we propose is small. We say that Mr. Speaker, when deciding whether a matter should be given precedence and go to the Committee, should be able to take into account the mode and publication of a contempt. Up to now Mr. Speaker has not been able to do that. All he has to decide is whether something which has been written is prima facie a contempt of the House. He is not able to take into consideration how small or petty it is. We say that Mr. Speaker should be able to say to what extent it is petty or important.
The next item is an issue that has concerned me over many years. It concerns libel proceedings against Members of Parliament acting in their capacity as Members of Parliament. The matter arose because of a case in which I was involved.
When I was a Back-Bench Member I wrote to the Paymaster-General, then the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) the Minister who was then in charge of the London Electricity Board, putting to him allegations, which had been made to me by colleagues in the City who knew what they were talking about, that the board was acting inefficiently in certain spheres and losing public money. I did not allege that the board was acting dishonestly. In a letter to the Minister I said that facts had been brought to my notice and I thought that they were correct and that he should look into the matter.
The Minister passed the letter on to the board which asked to see me. I was given an explanation and told that my views were incorrect. Later I received a letter threatening me with a libel action I brought that to the House straight away


as a matter of privilege on the grounds that the board appeared to be interfering with the duty and right of a Member of Parliament to put before a Minister something that he believed to be wrong.
The issue aroused great interest and it went to the Committee, where it remained for 15 months because of the legal aspects involved. In the end the Committee said that the letter should be considered as a proceeding in Parliament and therefore the Member writing that letter should not be open to court proceedings for libel.
The matter then went to the House as a whole where it was considered, and a motion was moved disagreeing with that practically unanimous decision of the Privileges Committee. For a variety of reasons—politics rather more than law—the motion was carried against the advice of the Committee by a majority of five. Since then anything written or said by a Member to a Minister which might be libellous, although a matter of public interest and within his parliamentary duties, opens up the possibility of his being brought to court and sued.
The only way to overcome that difficulty was for a Member to ask a Question in the House or to put a motion on the Order Paper. That was obviously a ridiculous situation. Clearly, if a Member has what he believes to be a genuine grievance on a matter of public interest, he must be entitled to write to the Minister about it. If a Member cannot do that and is compelled to raise the matter in the House, he might make public comments which are libellous and which he did not want to make.
The Committee therefore, recommends that there should be a definition of proceedings in Parliament. That definition is set out in the report. I shall not bother to read it, as it is rather long. In short, on parliamentary matters it recommends that any communication between a Member and a Minister or an Officer of the House is "the business of the House" and should be fully privileged. To make that effective, it is necessary to have legislation defining "business of the House". I hope that on this and other matters my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will tell us that he will bring forward such legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I have not discovered from reading the report why the Committee held the view that this matter required legislation as opposed to a declaratory resolution of the House. I should have thought that the House could by resolution declare what was a proceeding of Parliament, just as it can by resolution declare what are the precincts of Parliament. I do not follow why that matter requires legislation.

Mr. Strauss: The short answer is that nor do I, but the Attorney-General said that it was essential and the authorities of the House said that it was necessary. The Committee was told that this change could not he effected by a resolution of the House and that legislation was necessary. I bow to the wisdom of the Attorney-General. It may be that he will give the answer later. We were told that legislation was necessary and we accepted that statement.
The next matter concerns the method of raising privilege matters in the House. I think that everyone agrees that the present system is clumsy, ineffective and sometimes frustrating. The need to raise a matter of privilege with Mr. Speaker at the earliest opportunity often makes it impossible for a Member who has a very good case to put before the House to raise it at all. He might be ill, he might be away, or he might be waiting, as happened recently, for a transcript from the BBC in order to be sure that he wants to raise the matter.
Therefore, the Committee believes that the present practice is restrictive. Its recommendation is that it should be abolished and that in future a Member should be obliged to raise a matter as soon as reasonably practicable.
He must make the complaint in writing to Mr. Speaker, which will give Mr. Speaker time to consider it. Some of these matters are difficult and legally complex. Therefore, Mr. Speaker must have time to consult whom he wishes before making a decision. If the matter requires urgent decision—for example, a continuing contempt—he can give his decision the next day in the House and ask for the matter to go to the Privileges Committee.
If Mr. Speaker, after considering the complaint, says "No, no precedence should be granted here", we suggest that that should be the end of the matter and that it may not be raised on a point of order by an hon. Member. If he says "Yes", that he thinks that it is a matter that might go to the Committee of Privileges, he must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, announce the day when he will make that statement. The next day a motion will be put on the Order Paper moving that the matter go to the Committee of Privileges, not, as has happened up to now, by the Leader of the House, but by the hon. Member who has made the complaint.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is there not also another side of the coin to substantiate the argument? Have there not been occasions, because of the need for haste, when matters have been raised and the whole juggernaut of the privileges machinery put into operation when a bit of thought and less need for haste might have avoided the whole process?

Mr. Strauss: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr Dalyell) is definitely right. It is for that reason that we suggest this delay.
There will be a written notice to Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker will have time to think about it and the hon. Member who raised the matter will have time to think about it, too. I think that is very important. Only then, when they have both had time for thought, will the matter come before the House, unless Mr. Speaker is of the opinion that it is urgent and requires immediate attention.
I come to the last matter of importance, and it is the most important. We suggest reviving the authority of the House for fining someone who has been responsible for contempt of the House. We think that it is exceedingly desirable. At the moment the Committee of Privileges has no authority to do anything to prevent people from saying or writing things in contempt of the House or, if they do, doing anything about it. It is possible—we have had many examples—for somebody or a newspaper to say deliberately outrageous things and there is nothing

that the Committee of Privileges can do about it except send a man to prison. The House would never agree to that. It has not been done for centuries.
The other thing that can be done is to demand that the individual concerned should come to the Bar of the House, be reprimanded by Mr. Speaker. It is a different situation for a Member of the House if he commits contempt. He can be punished in many ways. He can be suspended for a short period, or expelled from the House. There is no sanction that can be imposed upon the outside person.
The obvious instance is that of a newspaper editor who commits contempt of the House and is proud of it, does not mind and thinks that he is doing something in the public interest. He may be a maverick editor who would welcome the opportunity of being brought to the Bar of the House and reprimanded by Mr. Speaker. By doing so he would receive marvellous publicity.
On many occasions when the Committee of Privileges has been considering a case it has had to say to itself "We can either go through this nonsense of bringing somebody to the Bar of the House, or just say that, although the matter was a breach of privilege, in view of the circumstances, we will not pursue it further", when it should have pursued the matter further and taken some penal action.
It will be rare for the House to want to take penal action. It will not be for the Committee to take such action. The Committee will recommend it to the House and the machinery is set out here for the protection of the man who has committed contempt of the House and to ensure that he receives a fair trial, and has right to an appeal and so on.
It is essential that that reserve power should be there for the House to be able to exercise its authority effectively and ensure that someone who has committed a contempt of the House, perhaps quite deliberately for selfish political purposes because he is an ostentatious person and likes publicity, can be told "You did wrong and you will he punished for it". I hope that the House will accept that recommendation.
That, again, will require legislation. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will tell me whether he intends to bring in the legislation as soon as possible on this and one or two other matters on which legislation is required.
I am sorry that I have spoken for so long, but these are important matters, and it is desirable to outline the changes that we propose.
The only other matter relates to a problem that has often been before the Committee of Privileges. If a man has committed a contempt of the House by saying something outrageous and libellous that would bring the whole House, or a section of it, into contempt, is it a good defence for him to say "What I said is true. Surely you are not going to stop me from speaking the truth. You cannot punish me for saying something derogatory, because what I said was the truth"? That kind of problem has been before the Committee on many occasions, and it has never been completely resolved. I do not think that our remedy resolves the issue completely, either, but it goes a long way towards doing so.
The report says that if a man who has said something that is a contempt of the House can show that he did it after reasonable, proper and careful investigation, that he has taken all necessary steps to find out the truth and that has done it in such a way as to give minimum publicity outside and sincerely believes in what he has said, it would be right for the Committee of Privileges to accept the truth of the statement if it is made under those conditions, but only under those conditions.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the Father of the House sure that that is enough? A statement can fulfil all those conditions and still be grossly misrepresentative of the truth because it is only a partial truth and not a representative truth. Perhaps I may just remind the Father of the House of Duffy's case. I think that most people agree that what the hon. Gentleman said was true, but the only trouble was that he imputed it to one side of the House when it was equally true of the other.

That was the real nature of his offence, not that he said something untrue.
Would the right hon. Gentleman care to turn his mind to when a statement is true and is made accurately, but is offensive to the House and indeed brings the House into contempt because it suggests that something is unique to one section of the House when it is general to more than one section of it?

Mr. Strauss: All these things are difficult to define exactly. We had a principle in mind—and I think the hon. Gentleman agrees with it—to get some definition that was reasonable. It does not cover all cases. The report says that the man will be absolved from committing contempt of the House provided that the allegations have been made
only after all reasonable investigations had taken place, had been made in the honest and reasonable belief that it was in the public interest to make them and had been published in a manner reasonably appropriate to the public interest.
I do not know. The hon. Member may be able to get a beter definition, but that is the best we can think of.
We are proposing that if a man who has committed some contempt by publishing something untrue can say all these things, we can say "Well it was a pity, but we will let the matter go at that." That is reasonable. The committee could not think of any better words. These are our main recommendations.
One other point is that where the Committee permits someone to be legally represented it should not only grant legal representation with the consent of the House but be able to grant legal aid also. That is a proposition that should apply not only to the Privileges Committee but to all other Committees where a Member or individual is entitled to have a lawyer to help him make his case.
These changes are the unanimous view of the Select Committee on Privileges. They are all reasonable and defensible. I hope that the House will endorse them tonight.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I do not recollect an occasion when so


much sheer muddle was confused into one motion of five lines. If this motion had read:
That this House takes note of the Committee of Privileges in their Third Report in the last Session of Parliament and the Recommendations of that Committee on Parliamentary Privilege (House of Commons Paper No. 417)
I should have less objection, though I will come later to a gross defect in one of the recommendations. But there is an internal contradiction in saying that this House agrees with the Committee of Privileges in its Third Report and then going on to say that only those recommendations that do not require statutory provision and which are named shall have immediate effect, because the normal practice of the House is that if it passes a resolution agreeing with the report or recommendations of a Committee, those recommendations are then acted on.
Is it clear that it is not intended to be the case now? Or is it intended to be the case? We cannot know from perusing these five lines of the motion.
One example is that the authority for paying expenses when Select Committees go outside Parliament within the United Kingdom, or outside it, is alleged by the Fees Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General to be a terse resolution of the House agreeing with an extremely ambiguous report of the Select Committee. That is alleged to take the place of financial resolution. Yet tonight we are asked to pass a motion saying
That this House agrees with the Committee of Privileges in their Third Report.
Does it? If it does, it is agreeing to quite a lot of things that the Father of the House has not mentioned; for instance, the right to impeach should be formally abandoned and legislation should be introduced for this purpose. What happens if this motion is passed tonight but no such legislation is introduced? Has the House abandoned the right to impeach or not?
On the precedent of spending money on Select Committee trips, if the motion gives the authority for expenditure, clearly it has done something. The alternative view is that it has done nothing except express an opinion. That is not a satisfactory situation.
I should have liked to confine my remarks tonight to the second half of the motion, which declares:
the Recommendations contained in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the Report, and those in paragraph 16 which do not require legislation for their implementation, shall have immediate effect.
If the motion means what it says in the first two lines
That this House agrees with the Committee of Privileges in their Third Report in the last Session of Parliament.
once we pass this motion, all the recommendations, including those not in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the 1967 report and those in paragraph 16 that do not require legislation for their implementation will have been approved by the House as a whole.
It is an absurdity of terms in which the Leader of the House has drawn this motion tonight. I cannot conceive why he did not draft it to take not of some recommendations and approve others. To agree to some that do not come into effect leaves us, the Speaker and the Speaker's advisers not knowing what on earth the House will have done tonight if it passes the motion. I ask the Leader of the House to treat this simply as an interesting debate and not to have his motion put to the Question at the end of the discussion, because nobody knows what it means.
Even the second half of the motion, which purports to be more specific, declares
That the Recommendations contained in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the Report, and those in paragraph 16 which do not require legislation for their implementation shall have immediate effect.
What does that mean in respect of paragraph 5 on page iv? Any hon. Members who have a copy should read it. The whole paragraph is about the 1967 report, which is referred to sometimes as the 1967 report and sometimes as the report. In line 5 it is referred to as the report. and in line 1 as the 1967 report. It ends by saying
they recommend instead a Resolution of the House agreeing with this Report".
Which report: the 1967 report or the Third Report of the Committee of Privileges? One can apply either interpretation on that clause which unhappily is


approved. This happens to be one of the specific proposals which is to have immediate effect.
What will have immediate effect? Will it be the Third Report or the report that the whole paragraph is talking about? To attribute this report to the 1967 report is against the argument of the preceding paragraph.
The Leader of the House has not read through what he is inviting us to agree to tonight. Before I come to the weightiest parts, I shall take Recommendation 13 on page ix that
The right to impeach should be formally abandoned, and legislation introduced for this purpose.
We are invited to believe that the right to fine does not still exist. It may not exist on the ground that it has not been used for a long time, but no one has been impeached for a long time. If we need to pass legislation to resurrect the right to fine, why on earth do we need legislation to extinguish the right to impeach when impeachment has been used more recently than fine? It defies all logic.
The Father of the House attributed—I am sure accurately—to a previous Attorney-General the astonishing theory that there was some sort of eroding of privilege by the passage of time. Yet no Attorney-General of whom I am aware has decreed or advised the House of the moment in time when that happened.
Coming to the right hon. Gentleman's own case—known as the Strauss case—is there anybody in the House who thinks that, had the House of Commons accepted the recommendation of the Committee of Privileges and found that the right hon. Gentleman's correspondence with the Minister was subject to privilege, it would then have needed an Act of Parliament to make it subject to privilege? Of course it would not. It is an absurd example of relying on bad advice from Attorneys-General. The Committee should have used its own brain and intellect instead of relying on obviously fallacious advice from an Attorney-General. If the House had passed a motion accepting the report of the Committee of

Privileges in the Strauss case, it is inconceivable that that would not have been that. Of course it would have been that.
So why are we now invited to believe that since then, not since hundreds of years ago, it takes anything other than a resolution of the House to reverse the resolution in the Strauss case? It does not take an Act of Parliament to reverse a resolution of the House. It takes only another resolution of the House.
So, quite clearly, nonsense advice was being given by the then Attorney-General to the House. I am not impressed by the fact that the Committee of Privileges was prepared to swallow such an obviously fallacious proposition instead of exercising the intelligence with which presumably it was endowed and the confiddence with which apparently it was not endowed.
Turning now to impeachment—Recommendation 13—the reason why many of the powers of the House have not been exercised for a long time is that they have not needed to be exercised. It might be—we can never know—a corollary of the fact that those powers existed that they have not needed to be exercised. We cannot know. Which of us now present in the House can look into the future and say that we or our successors will never in any Government, however temporary, have a Minister so oppressive that Parliament wishes to impeach him, when that is the sole remaining authority of Parliament over an oppressive Executive?
Can we look into the future with such assurance? I cannot. Who else can? Yet concealed within the five lines of this muddled motion is the extinctioin of that final—Draconian, yes; rarely used thank heavens, rarely needing to be used—power of Parliament over an abusive Executive.
If we pass the motion tonight I do not know whether we shall have extinguished it. The recommendation says
and legislation should be introduced for this purpose.
I am in no way sure that legislation has to be introduced for that purpose, because if a resolution of the House in the Strauss case could remove privilege from what


the Committee of Privileges believed to be the existing situation, why cannot a resolution of the House stop us from impeaching Ministers? The Committee of Privileges did not believe that it was inventing a new privilege. It believed that it was declaring what the privilege was and had been from time unknown.
Therefore, if a resolution of the House can do that, why cannot a resolution of the House stop us from impeaching Ministers in future, which, it is declared, requires legislation? My fear is that it does not require legislation and that passing the motion would deprive the House, would castrate the House, of its final power over an abusive Minister, of whatever political persuasion and however far on in time.
I take a very unfavourable view of the doctrine of attrition of power, the doctrine that if the House does not use certain powers because it does not need to, those powers become extinct. I do not accept that doctrine.
I certainly accept advice that in practical terms it may become more and more difficult for the House to gather the courage to exercise those powers, but that is totally different from the doctrine of attrition of power by efflux of time. That doctrine has this appalling disadvantage: how can the Chair ever rule when the moment has come at which the attrition has become complete? Attrition is a process, not an incident. An incident occurs at a point in time. The doctrine of attrition of power suggests that at some moment the Chair must rule—or, if the Chair does not, a court must rule—that, at no known moment in time, by no recognisable event, a power that clearly existed no longer exists. I find that a very unpersuasive argument.
I have sought briefly to show the immensity of what is comprehended within the innocent-looking, woolly motion. I am sure that it would have commanded the presence of more hon. Members if they had realised what the motion did. We now come down to the things that even those who promote it admit that they want to do.
The abolition of imprisonment as a penalty and the substitution of fining

means that we exempt from penalty for contempt of the House those who for one reason or another will not suffer from a fine. We are creating for the first time a class of persons de facto though not de jure exempt from punishment, other than reprimand at the Bar, for contempt of the House.
Someone who is immensely wealthy, someone with the resources of a huge company or a trade union behind him, will not be hurt by any fine imposed by the House, although it may hurt someone else. We read on page viii of the report:
A fine is the only penalty which can be imposed upon a limited company or other corporate body.
Is it? But do we want to punish the trade union members or the shareholders, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, those who committed the contempt—the directors of the company or the officers of the union? Why should we want to punish those who have not knowingly participated in the event?

Mr. Michael English: I was on the 1967 Committee. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it might just be possible that in this day and age we thought that for the sort of offence about which we are talking a fine was more appropriate than imprisonment?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Indeed. The gravamen of what I was saying earlier was that I was not convinced that the House had ever lost the right to fine. If it has, pray tell me when and how.

Mr. English: Just after 1660.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: By what? I will give way to the hon. Gentleman once more. How did the House lose that?

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that there are certain matters not yet resolved between this House and another place. One of them was our right to initiate financial resolutions, which reappeared in the middle of the nineteenth century, or, for example, when another place claimed that it had not lost the right but eventually conceded the fact that it had and so on. Another case was


where the House never admitted that it had lost the right to fine but simply accepted the fact that it had. This House accepted by implication the House of Lords' decision that the House of Lords had the right and the House of Commons had not.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: But the accepted constitutional doctrine, as I understand it, is that the House cannot, without Act of Parliament, invent a privilege that it has not previously possessed. It is an entirely different proposition that the House cannot use a privilege which it has not used for a long time. It is an unchallengeable historical fact that this House has fined people. It might be, not because of the law of privileges but because of the inconvenience of execution, which is entirely different, that the House might wish to have a declaratory Act, as it sometimes does for other reasons, confirming something that already exists.
I find very persuasive indeed the advice which the Clerk of the House gave. He did not volunteer it. He was invited by the House—an unprecedented event as far as I know—to comment upon a report of a Committee of the House. The inconveniences of fining are a good example of the cure being worse than the disease. The Committee of Privileges endeavours to circumvent them by suggesting that it should be an unamendable motion. But such a motion is not the same thing as a motion that cannot be altered subsequently by another motion. Let that not be forgotten. The difficulty has not been obviated by saying that it shall be unamendable. This point has escaped many people.
The Committee might have taken the view that in terms of imprisonment an indefinite sentence—the pleasure of the House—is not always appropriate: quite so. There was a time when it was believed that the House did not have the power, by the doctrine of attrition, to impose a sentence of finite length. Given that the sentence of imprisonment cannot last more than the duration of a Session of Parliament, it is clear that the House, within that outer limit, still has power to imprison for a definite period.
My reason for saying that is the judgment given by the Australian court in

1955 and re-affirmed on appeal by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to the effect that the Speaker's warrant in the Australian Parliament had not exceeded the undoubted privilege of that House.
At that date the Australian Parliament had not drawn up its own rules of privilege, but under Section 49 of the constitution its privileges were co-extensive and coterminous with those of the House of Commons.
The finding was that the committing of the two prisoners, Fitzpatrick and Browne, for a specified period, until a specified date, did not go beyond the undoubted privilege of the Australian Parliament, which was entirely coterminous and co-extensive with the privilege of the House of Commons here. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council having reaffirmed that on appeal, it cannot be the case that the court exists in the United Kingdom which could go behind the face of the Speaker's warrant on such an occasion on the ground that the House had imposed a sentence in excess of its undoubted privilege.
My point is that should this House now take the view that it agrees with the Committee of Privileges that it should be able to impose a sentence of imprisonment which is not indeterminate until the end of the Session, and which is not at the pleasure of the House, it can still do so. It may not have known that it could do so until the 1955 case in Australia went to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but since then it has known.
All in all, It seems to me that the sensible thing for the Leader of the House to do, not only on the merit of the case but also because this must be by any conceivable criterion an unacceptable motion—because it does not do what it means to do, because nobody can say what it does do and because it does some things that it does not mean to do—is to beg leave, at the end of the debate, to withdraw the motion. It will not have been a waste of time. It will mean that our colleagues—that is to say, 30 or 40 times as many hon. Members as are now present—will be able to read tonight's proceedings in the Official Report and give some constructive thought about what they think the House ought to do.
I beg the Leader of the House not to carry to a Division the propositions contained in this quite jejune and incompetent motion, the meaning of which—inasmuch as it has any—I would pay him the compliment of believing that he does not even intend himself

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The House will forgive me if I do not follow the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I thought, if I may say so, that some of his language was extravagant and exaggerated, and I will leave it at that.
I begin by concurring in emphatic terms with paragraph 50 of the memorandum of the Clerk of the House, on page xxii. Referring to the editor of a national newspaper who was formally reprimanded by Mr. Speaker, he said:
It certainly appeared to me and others of my colleagues who were present, that by his demeanour the Editor was far from regarding the reprimand as a mere rebuke'.
Since I am the Member referred to on page xxviii, against the date of 27th May 1968, in relation to an article in The Observer purporting to give an account of evidence given to a Select Committee, again on page xxxviii, in July 1968, and at the top of page 1, perhaps I am in a better position than most to substantiate the Clerk's view and to say that being reprimanded by a full House, with the full paraphernalia, was a formidable experience and one that no Member who has had the misfortune to be so rebuked will ever forget. I think that I can speak, too, of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who had a similar experience and feels precisely the same way about it. These are scars that are not easily obliterated, and remain with one for a long time.
But, speaking for myself, I must say that I was sustained in what would have been very difficult days for anyone by my constituency Labour Party, which took a broad and generous view of the mess that I had got into and perhaps was concerned about the issue of germ warfare. I was sustained by a number of individuals, many in the Labour Party and among the trade unions, who were concerned more with biological weapons than perhaps with what they saw as parliamentary etiquette.
I was also sustained—I must say this in his presence—by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), now Leader of the House, who acted as a teller for the dissenters and who made a generous speech on which he must have worked quite considerably on my behalf, or at least on behalf of the issue. I should like to take this opportunity, 10 years later, of recording my gratitude to my right hon. Friend, which will never be obliterated.
On a lighter note, I also record my gratitude to right hon. Friends such as the present Secretary of State for Energy, who, when he rushed into the Lobby to discover precisely what he was being asked to vote for, stayed in the lobby lavatory until the count was finally made; and to my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary, the present Prime Minister, who said that he would not vote because he did not take part in blood rituals. Many other kindnesses were shown, and by most members of the then Labour Cabinet who did not vote in the Lobby.
I speak tonight, however, not out of self-justification but because I think that anyone who has been through this ordeal has something to say on the matter. I agree very strongly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) that these things should not be done in haste. I would have hoped that perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), who was then Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology would be present tonight, because I think that he might have agreed that had he not been under pressure to make a hasty decision, there might have been other ways of dealing with the situation that had arisen.
I say that not to say that I was right, which is not the burden of my argument tonight, but simply to say that had there been the scope for cooler consideration and had certain people not been rushed into it—I refer particularly to the then Member for Isle of Ely, Sir Harry LeggeBourke—a rather different view would have been taken in this case, as in a number of other cases. Perhaps there would have been wider consideration of the background, much of which I felt then and feel to this day was basically not so much that I had made a mistake in a particular instance but, in the view of


certain people who, I believe, prompted my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East, that my real wrongdoing had been that I had been far too nosey about the Ministry of Defence, particularly on issues such as Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft and atolls in the Indian Ocean and other matters that were highly irrelevant to the issue of privilege as it was then raised but that were subsequently brought into the whole argument as to why the issue had been raised. I was given to understand very widely at the time that had I not been such a bloody nuisance on other matters in relation to the Ministry of Defence, the particular issue of my behaviour at Parliament would not have been raised.
All that I am saying now is that if that is anything like the case, there is an added argument for not doing these things in haste. There is an added argument for not doing them in a situation such as that in which I was confronted with this for the first time at three o'clock in the afternoon, when by chance I was in the House, by Members who had been prompted from other sources to raise the issue at 3.30 p.m.—according to one Minister of the Crown, the Ministry of Defence—shortly before, when the whole thing was ill thought out. Very naturally, my first instinct, which I do not regret, was to say straightaway, lest anyone else was put under suspicion, "Yes, I did talk to The Observer." I am going into this at some length. But I say to my right hon. Friend the Lord President, and to the Attorney-General, that—arguing from a concrete case—surely there are better ways of doing such things. I think my right hon. Friend the Lord President is nodding.

Mr. English: He is doing his shoes up.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I was nodding as well.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend wish to intervene?

Mr. Foot: I am in full agreement.

Mr. Dalyell: The second point I should like to raise, 10 years later, which I do not think has been fully resolved, is the interaction between the work of the Privileges Committee and the Official Secrets Act. Part of the reason I confessed in

front of the Privileges Committee to a certain arrogance on the matter was that I knew there was nothing secret in what we had been told at Porton. I believe that this again raises a general issue for the House tonight.
I shall refer at some length to interventions during the speech of the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), on 24th July 1968. He said:
I hope that hon. Members will seek to separate these two things and will not allow their view of Porton and what may or may not go on there to affect their judgment of the action which was taken.
At that point the right hon. Gentle-man was interrupted by Dr. Ernest A. Davies, the then hon. Member for Stretford, who asked:
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the article published in the Observer could have been published in almost identical form if the newspaper reporters had awaited the normal report emanating from the Committee?
Mr. Heath: That point is precisely the one made by the Leader of the House and by so many hon. Members who have spoken today. It was in the hands of the Select Committee, which was deciding what to publish. The hon. Gentleman concerned breached that confidence.
This theme of secrecy has been running through the whole debate. For me, secrecy and security were not the matter with which the Privileges Committee was dealing. Questions of military or civil security can be dealt with by other means. There is legislation—
At that stage the right hon. Gentleman was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). The debate continued:
Mr. J J Mendelson (Penistone): Before the right hon. Gentleman continues—
Mr. Heath: I have already given way a number of times.
Mr. Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman is reported to have asked, as a member of the Committee of Privileges, an important question on page 39 of the Second Report from the Committee of Privileges. Questioning Vice-Admiral Sir Norman Denning, the right hon. Gentleman asked:
'You have now read the article in the Observer. If the journalist had submitted it to you before it was published, is there anything in it which you could have asked him to exclude because of D notices? '
That was question No. 435. The answer given was, `No'. I approve of the right hon. Gentleman's questioning. He asked some essential questions—[Interruption.] I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Gentle-man's speech. I trust that hon. Members will allow me to finish my intervention. If


the right hon. Gentleman thought that that question was relevant, is not the background issue of security also relevant to the whole case?
Mr. Heath: With respect, that is not so. I asked that question to show that nothing published in the Observer could have been kept out by D notices. That does not alter the position.
This raised important issues which I believed will arise again for anyone in exactly the same position. Now is the time at least to raise the matter and to ask my right hon. Friend or the Attorney General—whoever is winding-up—precisely what his philosophy is with regard to this intermingling between the Official Secrets Act and the Committee of Privileges.
In 1968 my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) said:
It was sent to a newspaper office and it was kept there for several days ".
That is the document which contained "unexpurgated material".
I regret to say that my hon. Friend, for whom I have every respect, allowed that to be done—and that is the gravamen of the charge against him.
I come to the newspaper concerned."—[Official Report, 24th July 1968; Vol. 769, c. 621–8.]
Another copy of this same document was found by me, having doubtless been put there by a colleague on the Committee, in a wastepaper basket, by chance, in the Commons Library.
The issue arising is, if Select Committees are to be given documents, what care will be taken of them? For three years I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee. There were certain key Treasury documents of which great care was taken. They had to be returned on every occasion that members of the then PAC looked at them, never leaving Room 16. They were produced by the Clerk and, if we wanted to read them, we went up to the Committee Room before a meeting of the Committee, did so, and they were put away. That seems to be the right way to deal with these matters.
But how much can there be in the matter of secrecy if unsidelined reports are circulated round every hon. Member? We know full well that, almost any day that we go into the Library, we can find lying around precisely these kinds of documents. Therefore, I think that the

House has to make up its mind what is secret material and what is not, and there are very many issues that arise from that.
The third issue that I wish to raise is the question touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, which also occurs in the report. This is the tribulation of hon. Members who have to appear before the Privileges Committee. My right hon. Friend suggests that an hon. Member appearing before the Privileges Committee should have the right to take a lawyer. I must say that, in the light of my experience, anyone who appears before the Privileges Committee would be very unwise not to take a lawyer or at least some parliamentary friend skilled in the law.
The trouble is that, unless a person appearing before the Committee is used to being cross-questioned, he can get into a terrible muddle. He will be questioned not only by skilled lawyers such as the present Lord Chancellor, who at that time was, as Attorney-General, doing the job that he had to, but also he can get bogged down because of the irrelevant questions which are asked by colleagues. It has been the experience of those appearing before the Committee to whom I have talked that some of the questions are so irrelevant that, without being rude, it is very difficult to give answers.
Both Duncan Sandys, the right hon. Member for Streatham as he then was, and Arthur Woodburn, then my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire, asked enormously long-winded questions with very little to do with the issue in hand. Unless the individual appearing before the Committee has a sort of legal answer, he can get deeper and deeper into the mire. I was put in that very position. Having been asked an endless question of dubious relevance by my then right hon. Friend who said subsequently that he was trying to help me, I was then asked rather sharply by the Leader of the Opposition "Do you really mean this?", and I had to say "No". Anyone appearing before the Privileges Committee and likely to be tied down afterwards by what he has said would be well advised to take in a lawyer with him and have the proceedings properly conducted and not in a very amateur way which can disadvantage him at the end of the day.
In his diaries, Richard Crossman referred to me as an "appallingly bad witness". This is just part of the reason why, and I suspect that those who have appeared before the Committee have not done their case justice. I am not saying that they were right or wrong. That is not the point. But appearing without a lawyer to be asked all sorts of questions equally by non-lawyers put anyone at a disadvantage which may not be justified by the case in hand.
On the subject of proceedings in the Privileges Committee, I wish to ask whether we are sure that there is not one law for the minnows and another for the mighty; one law for the prominent and another for the not so prominent. Frankly, in my case, whereas most members of the then Cabinet were reticent and kind, one of the most censorious of all was the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir Harold Wilson).
If I am to be hauled before the House of Commons with all the paraphernalia of a rebuke—it is a formidable experience—and if my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw is to be hauled before the House of Commons in rather different but not wholly dissimilar circumstances, I want to know why the same censorious attitude should not be taken when my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton goes into great depth in writing on the subject of South African arms. It seems that leaks from the Cabinet are OK, but premature discussion of a Select Committee report, which I thought had been printed, deserves the full-blooded censure of the House of Commons.
Hon. Members must make up their minds because we are all under the same law, are we not? [Hon. Members: "No."] I do not at this stage want to stir the pot of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton, but day after day we read in the Press about these matters. But on the issue of South African arms, if my right hon. Friend is to be fully censorious of a minnow such as me in prematurely revealing a Select Committee report, I think that the House of Commons, if it is to adopt my attitude, should have something to say about those who reveal what purports to be secrets from the Cabinet. There cannot be different rules, one set for a Back Bencher in my

situation and another set for a former Prime Minister in the situation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton.
I wish to ask a question of the Minister who is to reply, and I do not expect him to go into the details of the case. What is the philosophy involved here? Are there to be the same rules for those who have the misfortune to be taken to the Privileges Committee and those who seem to be somewhat loose about what purports to be secret matters? It is one thing or the other.

Mr. Strauss: I do not think that there is any disadvantage to the big boys compared with the small, but the difference my hon. Friend raises is simply that the Privileges Committee is responsible only for leaks from Select Committees on matters that Select Committee has been considering. If there is a leak before that Committee reports, that is a contempt of the House. That is all it is concerned with. It is not concerned with other leaks. That explains why the Privileges Committee acts only in one case or the other.

Mr. Dalyell: Precisely. This is a little difficult. It appears to be a matter of the House of Commons being far harder on its own, so to speak, in relation to the House of Commons than it is on the Cabinet. There are issues that should be considered. Under the system, Back-Bench MPs get stick from Cabinet heavyweights like Wilson and Crossman, who themselves, responsible for megaton leaks, get away scot-free.
I conclude by referring to some words of my right hon. Friend the Lord President. He said in a striking passage in 1968:
anyone who has studied the history of privilege will see that whereas privilege in the days of Queen Elizabeth was about the protection of freedom, by the time of George III it was being used to oppress freedom. The sword for freedom was changed into a shield of secrecy. If that happened—I am not saying that it has happened again—it could happen again. Many of the civil liberties about which we boast most strongly in this country were established only by breaches of privilege. Nobody can deny that."—[Official Report, 24th July 1968 Vol. 769, c. 600]
In these matters involving privilege it behoves every one of us to be extremely careful and to reflect before we set in motion the juggernaut of the Privileges Committee—which, I repeat, is a most formidable instrument.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: I shall be brief because the hour is late.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will recollect that he and I, among others, served both on what is called the 1967 Committee in this report and on the Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament. I think that in general terms this report of the Committee of Privileges of which I was not a member but my right hon. and learned Friend was, is excellent, but some things are still missing, namely, the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament. The explanation for this is an oversight on the part of the office of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
When the 1967 Committee report was referred to the Committee of Privileges there was no referral of the report of the Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament. I raised the matter with the Clerk's Department, and through its good offices certain issues from the Joint Committee's report were mentioned to the Committee of Privileges, not the least being—it was probably the most important—the question of redefining what is a proceeding in Parliament to cover what is known historically as the "Strauss case". Oddly enough, the Joint Committee's examination in this context was not referred to the Committee. It has eventually been adopted by the Joint Committee, by the Faulks Committee on Defamation and by this report of the Committee of Privileges, all of which have accepted a recommendation which was drafted, as my right hon. and learned Friend will agree, by Lord Donovan, Chairman of the Joint Committee. If my memory serves me right, I do not think that any member of the Joint Committee disapproved of the draft that was put before it by Lord Donovan. It was an extremely good draft.
What concerns me is that so far the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament have not been put before the House. Some of its recommendations are extremely important. I shall not go through them all, but I mention one that suggests that that technicality of

procedure, the motion for an unopposed return, should be capable of being opposed. The importance of that recommendation is that a motion for an unopposed return, which was last used in relation to the Fay Report on the Crown Agents, covers something with absolute privilege in the law of defamation. It covers with the privilege of this place a document that otherwise does not possess it. For example, we can say something defamatory about somebody and then deprive him of his right to sue in court for what is said about him by the process of passing a resolution of the House.
That may or may not be a good thing, but the Joint Committee, chaired by Lord Donovan, recommended that it should be capable of opposition, so that someone may say "Before you pass this resolution, we think that you should know that you are depriving Joe Bloggs of his right to defend himself in court, and that Joe Bloggs has another side to this case".
That seemed to my right hon. and learned Friend, to myself, to Mr. John Foster, the other then Member of this House on the Joint Committtee, and the three learned gentlemen from the House of Lords, to be a simple proposition, upon which, as I recollect it, we were unanimous.
There are several other proposals that I need not go into at this hour, but I point out to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that when the 1967 Committee report, which was unanimous, was referred to the Committee of Privileges, nothing was done about the report of the Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament. There was one reason for that, namely, that at the time the report was published the Faulks Committee on Defamation was sitting. That is over and done with, and still nothing has happened. Before there is any legislation—and under the terms of the motion there must he legislation—may we have the appropriate resolution?
I believe that the 1967 Committee was united in saying that the right to impeach should be abandoned. Since 1967 Watergate has occurred, and perhaps that recommendation needs reconsideration. It is not necessarily true that everything we then said should be done applies today.
The House should have the power to fine. We have only the power to imprison. This is odd when the normal reason for a breach of privilege is that someone wants to put something in a newspaper which is sold for a profit, and receives advertising revenue, and by someone who is trying to increase sales and would not include items in it that would lower sales. We have no power to fine that newspaper. Instead, we have power to imprison some poor journalist who is only doing what his editor tells him to do. It is more appropriate that we should have the power to fine the organisation concerned rather than to put the heavy hand of imprisonment upon someone who is merely an employee of the organisation which has committed the offence.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. John Roper: I wish the Minister to clarify a matter that has come to my attention since the debate began. The Lord President's motion states that we shall endorse those parts of paragraph 16 which do not require legislation for their implementation. That is clear, except for one of the miscellaneous recommendations of the 1967 Committee.
Recommendations 5 and 8 do not require legislation and we automatically endorse them. Recommendations 7, 10 and 13 contain certain specific references to legislation being required. But Recommendation 11 is unclear and ambiguous. I should like clarification on it. It states that
The immunity of Members and Officers of the House from appointment as Sheriff should be abandoned and Members (and Officers of the House) should be free to accept the office of Sheriff in all cases which would not subject them to disqualification.
The reason for the disqualification is the provision that it is improper for a man to be sheriff in a county in which his constituency falls because he may act as returning officer. But it is possible for him to act as sheriff in another area. That does not require legislation.

Mr. English: The English meaning of the word "sheriff" is different from the Scottish meaning.

Mr. Roper: I was referring to the situation in England, and possibly Wales; not in Scotland. We can consider that on Report on the Scotland Bill. There

seems to be uncertainty about the requirement for legislation.
On page xxiii of the Select Committee's report we find the useful Appendix A to the memorandum by the Clerk of the House. In paragraph 11 he states that
No Government legislation could be promised.
It seems to me, re-reading the 1967 report, that legislation is not needed. I hope that the question whether legislation is needed on this matter of detail will be clarified by the Leader of the House. If that is not possible, may we be given an assurance that it will be clarified as soon as possible?

11.31 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I should like to put two matters to the Leader of the House.
Following what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I am not clear why legislation is required. Why cannot we lay it on the Table? These matters refer almost exclusively to the House of Commons. Therefore, I should have thought that a simple resolution was all that was required. It may be that for certain technical reasons it is necessary, but I am sure that the House would like to know those reasons.
Secondly, what will be the effect between the time of the passing of the motion and the time when legislation is introduced?

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I should like to raise two matters—one of clarification and one of substance.
The clarification concerns Recommendation 7, which extends absolute privilege to the interchange between Members and Officers of the House and Ministers. I understand that up to now we have been governed by qualified privilege, as we would be in commercial or other dealings where there is no malice in a report imputing incompetence or something of that nature to an officer.
Where does that leave a Member in dealing not with a Minister or Government Department but with a local authority or similar body? Having read the report, I understand the position remains unaltered. For example, if I were to write to a local councillor and say that


I thought one of the officers of the council was incompetent, I should be protected by the doctrine of qualified privilege. However, I should not attract the absolute privilege that the new change gives were I to write a similar letter to a Minister.
On the matter of substance, I think that we are being asked, rather late at night in a thin House, to abandon some powers that 10 years ago might have seemed unnecessary and, with the march of time, might seem a little less so now. I refer to the power to imprison and to impeach. I accept that there is a need for the House to be able to impose fines in certain cases. I follow the reasoning behind that need and accept it. But I do not see that the power to fine necessarily means abandoning the power to imprison.
I can, without difficulty, think of cases that could arise where either malice or a determination to denigrate the House as such might be shown by an individual using some form of publication where a fine would be ineffective because the organisation that published the document had no resources. It seems that we are abandoning the possibility of inflicting any kind of punishment in such cases.
It is not unknown for organisations and individuals to be happy to publish libels, because, as they have no money, they know that it will not be worth while suing them. That has happened before, and no doubt it will happen again. I do not see why we should abandon the power to imprison such persons, should they be in contempt of the House, because we are seeking to fine them in appropriate circumstances.
I agree that nobody has been impeached for 150 years, but that is not all that long in the history of Parliament. Impeachment was used for great political offenders whom the ordinary powers of the law might fail to reach. The last person to be impeached in Britain was Lord Melville of Dundas, in 1806, for dishonesty in charge of a public office. It seems to me that impeachment was a valuable weapon when Ministers and others had the capacity to dispose of patronage on a valuable scale, and the capacity, because of their position as Ministers, to engage in activities which brought them great personal reward but which were if not illegal at least improper

from the point of view of their conduct as Members of this House.
I regret that it seems to me that we are getting back into that era. I am not making any statements or suggestions about the integrity of the present Government, or any future Government that we are likely to see. I am merely saying that we are getting back into an era where more than 40 per cent. of the gross national output is under the direct or indirect control of Ministers. I can imagine circumstances in which it could be difficult to bring an action at law but where it would be improper for this House to let pass certain conduct by Ministers without doing anything about it.
The processes that are now open to correct such behaviour can lay great burdens and strains on the innocent. Just as there is an argument, which has been put forward tonight in favour of one of the proposals, that it might mean that no publicity is needed when no publicity is deserved, so the power to impeach could mean that a certain type of inquiry need not be set up when such an inquiry could involve evidence that would possibly be cruel and unfair to those who are innocent. This is not a power that we should lightly give up.
I hope that we can be assured that in passing this motion, if we do, the points that I have made do not automatically follow, and that we are not necessarily voting for those recommendations which the report says require legislation, because some of us would have grave reservations about doing that.

11.39 p.m.

Sir Michael Havers: I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee not only on the customary skill and courtesy that he showed in obtaining a unanimous decision from that Committee but on the report, which reads so well. I was proud and happy to serve as a member of that Committee under his chairmanship.
Some of the amendments that have been suggested can only increase the dignity of the House. They will ease the difficult task of Mr. Speaker and have the added advantage of giving time for tempers to cool and, perhaps, for wiser counsels to prevail.
On the question of the remedy at law, where the proposal is that if there is a


clear case of defamation the Member of Parliament should take it to the courts rather than seek a reference to the Committee of Privileges, I think that double right can be just as objectionable as double jeopardy; the double jeopardy; that applies, for example, to a police officer who may be faced not only with trial in a court for an act, but with disciplinary proceedings. It also has the advantage that it creates a limitation to the House itself being brought into contempt proceedings where they do not involve the House at all. Therefore, I suggest to the House that this proposal is sensible and should be adopted.
The question of absolute privilege for Members when acting in the course of their duties is essential, because it is very important that the exchange of information in matters involving a Member's responsibilities should be absolutely privileged. A Member should not be under any threat or fear of an action for defamation when doing his job. There is a bonus referred to in the report, that if this recommendation is accepted it will largely avoid the use of the cloak of privilege by the Member having to raise the matter on the Floor of the House to protect himself, and will thus avoid the damage that may follow an honest mistake by a Member if it turns out to be unjustified. The cloak of privilege is a valuable protection, but one which must not be abused. I am sure that Members always bear that in mind.
I was impressed by the point made by the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) about power extended to local authorities. Members are increasingly involved in local authority matters as well as in matters involving central Government. The obligation that we have to be frank in our communications with officers of the local council as well as with ministers and civil servants in Government Departments involves us in having, perhaps, to stake ourselves to some extent by carrying out that duty of frankness when communicating with these officers. It may well be that we should look again at the obligations of Members when dealing with the immense responsibilities they have in respect of local government affairs.
It seems quite astonishing that this House does not have the power to fine

though it has power to imprison and to do practically everything else. I agree that imprisonment should be abolished, but it would be nonsense to leave no sanction beyond reprimand by Mr. Speaker. I was as moved and impressed, as I am sure every Member was, by the speech of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who made clear to all of us the tremendous impact that had been made on him. The scar will remain with him for life, I am sure, and the reprimand that he suffered. I share with him a feeling that he, the minnow, should be brought before the Committee of Privileges while an ex-Prime Minister, the last eight or nine days' Press reports of whom must be the most disastrous of any Prime Minister this century, can apparently, if the hon. Member is right, leak Cabinet secrets and not be brought to book in any way.
But what happened to the hon. Member is something which I am sure meant more to him because he is a respected Member of this House, and is proud of the job he does. He felt the reprimand all that more sadly.
The Select Committee report of what happened in the Australian case shows that it was said openly that the intention of the editor and the newspaper proprietor was to shut up that MP and prevent his speaking. In these sorts of cases a reprimand might be a total waste of time. If we are to abolish imprisonment and not send people to the Tower we must have another sanction rather than a reprimand in cases where people simply do not give a damn about it. These are not cases where a fine would be impotent.
If one has cases where there is a deliberate attempt to influence hon. Members' conduct by threatening to withdraw financial support, a reprimand would be clearly inadequate. I think that the penalty of a fine is right.
I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who has almost become the keeper of the conscience of the House in recent years. He criticised the idea of the imposition of fines. He said that these would be paid by employers and trade unions. One can always find examples in which any penal sanctions will not be adequate in particular cases. One could say that a fine of £100 is nothing


to a company director with a Rolls-Royce, but it could be disastrous to a lorry driver with no overtime. One cannot say that because in certain cases a penalty is not effective we should do away with the idea altogether.
There could be no limit to the fine that this House could impose. It could amount to thousands of pounds. If the person concerned were employed by a nationalised industry or was working for a trade union the case might involve the similar rights of the district auditor. Fines may be the right way, but we must keep a sense of proportion and accept that no system is perfect.
Justification is one of the problems that has exercised the Committee of Privileges for years. In the short time that I have been a member of the Committee I have found that this long-standing problem has exercised my mind. The traditional approach cannot be right when there is complete justification available to the person accused of committing contempt. He may have a tape recording, or correspondence, or a most valuable and credible witness to support his case. It is quite astonishing that there has grown up a tradition in that Select Committee that evidence is not to be admitted because it is not the Committee's purpose to decide whether there is justification, its purpose is simply to establish whether there is a prima facie case of contempt.
That is not the way of natural justice. If a man acts in a way that totally disqualifies him from being a Member of Parliament, and this can be proved, it is quite wrong that the person bringing the allegation can be found guilty of contempt. I was very glad that we could to some extent alleviate that rule, which has existed for a long time.
The Committee has made a number of recommendations, some of which cause anxiety to my hon. Friends. Matters that need legislation will not affect the resolution tonight. The House will have the opportunity to discuss these when the Government, in their own good time, bring forward legislation to deal with these resolutions.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton that the wording of the motion is slightly muddled, but we want the House to agree to the resolutions that do not require legislation. These seem to improve the integrity of the House

and appear to make us less laughable outside, when one considers some of the trivial things that have happened. The resolutions impose a cooling-off period, and ease the task of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In connection with his interpretation of
That the House agrees with the Committee of Privileges in their Third Report…
will my right hon. and learned Friend look at Recommendation 15? This says that if there is power to fine, the power to imprison ceases. Legislation on this is recommended.
Since it does not require legislation to remove the power to impison—a simple resolution will do that—the passing of the motion agreeing with the recommendation that the power to imprison should cease will terminate the power. Or will it? What does the resolution mean?

Sir M. Havers: I made the position quite clear in my speech.

11.50 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Like the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), I wish to pay my tribute to those Members of the House who have contributed most to producing the proposals now before us. I add one other name to those which have been mentioned. My right hon Friend the Father of the House—the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss)—has a special interest in this matter, as he indicated, because he played a leading part in what I suppose was the most famous privilege case over a long time—the Strauss case. He referred to it again today. One of the deficiencies of the position today is that we are not finally able to dispose of that matter, but I assure my right hon. Friend as soon as we can—I cannot give him an absolute definite date—we will seek to introduce the legislation which we believe is required to carry out that part of the matter dealing with the procedures in Parliament to ensure that there shall not be a repetition of the Strauss case.
Not only did my right hon. Friend play a leading part in the Strauss case, and not only did that case play a very big part in shaping the whole attitude of Parliament towards privilege; perhaps it


was the guilty conscience which the House of Commons had about the vote which it took in that case that prepared the way for subsequent changes and the establishment of the Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, which produced the report of 10 years ago to which my right hon. Friend the Father of the House paid tribute and to which every hon. Member who has seen the development of this matter must also pay tribute. It was that report that persuaded the House to change its mind on privilege generally.
I also wish to pay another tribute, as other hon. Members have done. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) did this and I acknowledge that part of his speech, at least.
The advantage of the long interval of about 10 years since the production of that report is that we have had the document produced by the Clerk of the House—the document that was presented to the new Committee of Privileges which considered the matter. Anyone who reads that document will see that it is a masterly one. It comprehends the whole history of privilege in a way that perhaps no other document has done in the same space of time. It makes recommendations to the House which are so persuasive that the Committee had very little dissent in reaching the conclusion that it did. It also illustrates what I believe is the fundamental reason why we had to make a fresh approach to the whole matter.
I want to refer to those hon. Members who have discussed the question of which aspects of the matter still require legislation. I have already referred to the major question which requires legislation—the definition of the phrase of "proceedings in Parliament". It may be that we could deal with that in a separate Bill. If we were to have a Bill dealing with all the remaining matters requiring legislation it would be a considerable Bill. I am not eager to produce considerable constitutional measures to present to the House at this time, despite the skill and aptitude at getting such matters through the House that we learn as we go along.
It may well be, particularly in view of the discussion that we have had today,

in which I do not believe that there has been any real dissent from the proposition as to how we should proceed in this matter, that we could deal with the matter in a short, one-clause Bill. I should like to consider that proposition in the light of the representations made by my right hon. Friend.
That does not exclude the other matters. I am not saying that we would exclude the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), but to deal with all the questions requiring legislation would mean a considerable Bill.
I believe that the matter of the sheriff requires legislation, although it may not be absolutely apparent from a reading of the motion. I am not suggesting that the matter is of such momentous character that it would hold up all our parliamentary processes, but it is considerable.
The question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West would involve further and larger questions. I do not say that they could be dealt with in a single clause, but we shall see whether we can deal with the matter in any possible legislation. However, I do not give my hon. Friend any promise in that respect.

Mr. English: I am trying to help my right hon. Friend. I think that he will find it insufficient simply to change the definition of the phrase "proceedings in Parliament", without deciding on all the other matters that the Joint Committee decided in relation to who had absolute privilege and who had qualified privilege in defamation, which are not the same, as all lawyers in the House know. The matter becomes difficult then.
I asked my right hon. Friend—I asked only for a modest assurance—to bring the Joint Committee report to the Floor of the House, and preferably to the Floor of both Houses, so that we might consider the items in it that do not require legislation, on a motion similar to the one before us. The example that I gave was the unopposed return. Legislation is not needed to allow hon. Members to oppose an unopposed return.

Mr. Foot: As my hon. Friend and the House will have seen from the proceedings and discussions tonight, even non-controversial matters of this kind take


up quite a lot of time. Even the non-controversial matters in the previous debate took a considerable time. We were seeking to reach an agreement with my hon. Friend. I am sure that he was trying to help, but we did not succeed in reaching agreement. We took up three hours of precious parliametary time. Every half second of parliamentary time is precious to me. That is why I shall curtail my remarks as much as I can, but it would be discourteous not to reply to some of the other points raised in the debate.
The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) questioned the advisability of proceeding with the abolition of the right of impeachment. Legislation is required to deal with that. I can understand that impeachment was a weapon used by the House centuries ago. There would be some disquiet over removing it altogether, but all such questions would be debatable when the legislation was introduced. Legislation certainly would be needed to deal with that matter. Again, I cannot promise that we would include all these legislative proposals in the same measure.
From what hon. Members have said today, and on the basis of the experience of the House over recent years, it is clear that the question involved in the Strauss case is more important than any of the others to be dealt with, because it involves the day-to-day business of Members of Parliament. The sooner we can deal with that, the better. I should not like to have that matter hobbled by having to deal with all the other questions.
The question of imprisonment and fines, on which we should have to have legislation, also raises controversial matters. I believe that many hon. Members would wish to argue those issues and that therefore we would not get the rest of these proposals through so easily. I would not like to have to involve that question in a major Bill.
It is right that the House should change its whole approach to privilege. Part of the general case for doing so was put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). The case in which he was involved and the procedures involved were, as he quoted the Prime Minister as saying, a form of blood ritual. It was an obscene affair. In many respects an injustice was done. I am not saying that

my hon. Friend ws guiltless in every respect—I do not think that even he was claiming that—but I believe that the whole procedure which operated and the way in which it led to the macabre incident at the end was an absurdity and a travesty of justice.
It is because so many people in many of these privilege cases have been involved in travesties of justice that I have always been in favour of trying to see whether the way in which we deal with privilege can be changed. The proposal of the Attorney-General was designed to ensure that justice should be done in a much better way. When we had the first debates on his report nothing was done. When I was a Back-Bench Member I made the threat to the then Leader of the House—Leaders of the House come and go, and I forget who it was—that if he continued to bring forward privilege motions of the old character and in the old form, without any recognition of the report of my right hon. Friend's Committee, I would seek to oppose every privilege motion put forward. For many years I did so. We helped the procedures of the House in that direction. I believe that we were quite right.
That is all the more reason why I am gratified, as Leader of the House, to be trying out the same ideas from this Dispatch Box as I was putting forward when I was on the Back Benches. If we carry these proposals many fewer proposals for references to the Committee of Privileges will come forward. Certainly they will not be moved from the Government Front Bench, because one of the provisions of the recommendations is that they should be moved by the individual hon. Member concerned. I think that that would be a more positive way of doing things.
What we are seeking to do here, as a result of the unanimous report of the Committee that looked into these matters is to say that in future we shall not repeat the mistakes we made in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian and in many others. People outside this House have been unjustly treated, too.
There are two sides to the privilege coin. On one side it is essential, for the authority and rights of this House, and essential if the hon. Members are to perform their functions adequately, that there should be an absolute right for hon.


Members to be able to speak freely in this House without any intervention from monarchs, newspaper proprietors or whoever it may be. People in this House must be allowed to speak freely and be relieved of any fear that they may be brought before the courts on a libel or slander action. Of course, they must act responsibly, but they must have that right.
That is a privilege enfolded in the history of British Parliament going back to the days long before Queen Elizabeth, when it was the right of hon. Members to speak here irrespective of what the monarch might say. Now it is essential that hon. Members should be able to speak freely, irrespective of any outside influence. That is an absolute necessity for the maintenance of this Parliament.
I believe that with that right there goes something else, because often the privilege of Parliament has been interpreted differently. Often, cases are raised in which protests are made about criticism of Members of Parliament. That is a different kind of privilege. I am not saying, and these proposals do not say, that there must not be any form of protection at all for Members of Parliament who are subject to attacks and criticism and assaults by newspapers or others outside the House. But because Members of Parliament are relieved of the laws of libel and slander in the way that they can operate in this House—and that position must be sustained—all the more, for that reason, should they not be sensitive about criticisms made from outside.
There may be cases where things which are said or done outside interfere with the right of a Member to do his duties properly. In those cases action might still need to be taken, but in the vast majority of such cases the Member who insists on his own right to speak freely here should also seek to insist on the right of other people to speak freely outside. It is the combination of those two things. I believe, that we have sought to secure. That was what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and those working with him sought to secure in the court 10 years ago, and it is that same balance that we seek to secure in these proposals. In fact, as the Clerk of the House said in his memo-randum—

Mr. Peter Emery: The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out the fact, which is of great importance, that a motion on privilege will now be moved not by the Leader of the House but by the hon. Member who has brought it to the notice of the House. The right hon. Gentleman would have suffered himself, in that often in the past the support for a matter to go to the Commitee of Privileges has been through hon. Members, not knowing much about it, having to support the Leader of the House. Although the right hon. Gentleman may not think so, this is frequently what hon. Members want to do.
As we are starting a precedent here, will not the Leader of the House make it clear that when an hon. Member has to draw such a motion to the attention of the House in future it should not be something which is whipped or in any way decided upon in a party sense? It should be a House of Commons matter, on which Members make up their own minds, depending entirely on how they feel about it.

Mr. Foot: In my experience as Leader of the House I have not noticed any automatic desire on the part of the rest of the House to follow any recommendations that I make as to what courses should be taken. Privilege matters are House of Commons matters, and there has never been any Whip on such matters as far as we are concerned, and I do not believe that there should be. Even so, I think it is much better that it should be done by the Member who is raising the matter, and that is one of the proposals that is made.
However, it is not an absolute novelty that we should approach these matters with caution. I am glad to say that there is a very good authority for what I am saying. It was quoted by the Clerk in the memorandum that he presented to the Privileges Committee. He said, in paragraph 10, on page xii:
Thus Mr. Gladstone in speaking of a complaint of contempt said 'I think we should proceed in these matters with great caution, with great reluctance, and if my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) had consulted me, I should have ventured to dissuade him from taking the course he has '.
That is the kind of way in which, on many occasions, I should have liked to speak to Members on my own side and to


Opposition Members who sought to raise hasty privilege questions.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian that the should be a proper way of considering whether it is advisable to proceed in such cases. It does not mean to say that the protection should be removed altogether, but it does mean that we do not want to rush to the Committee of Privileges to try to protect Members from the violence of debate throughout the country generally.
I believe that the whole House has accepted these general proposals. I noted what was said by the hon. Member for Tiverton. I grant him this much, that the first part of the motion could have said "take note', but I do not think that it would have made much difference to the tone of the debate or to the manner in which the House has received the question. I grant that that might have been done, but what we are proposing is clear enough.
The report represents the unanimous will or desire of the members of the Committee. The Committee represents all sections of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) complained that there were no members of the Tribune Group on some other Committee, but I am very glad to say that on this Committee there was the most eminent of all members of the Tribune Group, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). He signed the recommendation. Therefore it must be, in that sense, good enough for everybody.
On that basis, I ask the House to approve the motion. Of course, we shall proceed to produce later the legislative proposals required. I do not promise that we can do that all in one Bill, but I promise that we shall look immediately at the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Father of the House, and I certainly think that we have a right to put that matter right.
I remember very well the battles that we had in the House on that matter. The whole House was shaken on those issues, and by a very narrow majority indeed the quite unwise decision was made that my right hon. Friend was

wrong. I am very glad that the whole House now accepts the view that he was right. I shall be very eager to try to put that in proper legislative form and carry it unanimously through the House.
Therefore, I ask the House to pass these proposals. I believe that they are important proposals, because the privilege of this House is important. I believe that what we are proposing will protect much better the necessary privileges of this House while discarding all the fripperies and trivialities that have sometimes surrounded them.

Sir M. Havers: Will the Leader of the House also consider the question of local government communications in similar cases, which may be very important, for the reasons that I have given?

Mr. Foot: Yes. That raises larger questions still. My motto is "One little Bill at a time," so we get them through one at a time. With the right hon. and learned Gentleman's support, we shall look at that matter as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Committee of Privileges in their Third Report in the last Session of Parliament on the Recommendations of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege (House of Commons Paper No. 417), and declares that the Recommendations contained in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the Report, and those in paragraph 16 which do not require legislation for their implementation, shall have immediate effect.

OPPOSITION PARTIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)

Motion made,
That the Resolution of the House of 20th March 1975 shall have effect from 1st January 1978 with the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph 2 of that Resolution:—
That for the purpose of determining the annual maxima of such assistance the following formula shall apply:
£550 for each seat won by the party concerned plus £1·10 for every 200 votes cast for it a the preceding General Election, provided that the maximum payable to any party shall not exceed £165,000:—[Mr. Bates.]

Hon. Members: Object.

EDINBURGH BYPASS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

12.11 a.m.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Virtually every transport plan since the Abercrombie Report in 1949 has strongly supported the creation of an Edinburgh outer city bypass. Today, every political party supports this project in principle. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland approved the outer city bypass on the Edinburgh Development Plan as long ago as 1957.
I hold in my hands a historic letter which was sent to the Chairman of the Outer City Bypass Campaign, Lord Ferrier, as long ago as 19th July 1960, by Sir Winston Churchill's former Secretary of State for Scotland, James Stuart. It states that
I had always visualised, in conjunction with the Forth Bridge, that a road should be made by-passing Edinburgh to the South. Without going into detail and not being precise as to the exact route, my view is still definite that this should be pushed forward as soon as possible.
That letter was written on 19th July 1960—more than 17 years ago.
Why has there been this extraordinary and almost scandalous delay? I can put forward one reason which can be regarded as a contributory factor. Between January 1967 and May 1975 more than £48 million was paid to Glasgow Corporation for its principal roads. I ask the Minister whether it is not the case that during that same period, between 1967 and 1975, Edinburgh received less than £1 million for principal roads—a sum so small that it could cover only the cost of a small part of the western approach road.
In 1970–71, the Edinburgh Council could not agree on which road projects it should support as a matter of priority. Consequently, it appears that about £5 million which might otherwise have gone to Edinburgh was directed instead for use on the planned Renfrew dual carriageway, which was promptly upgraded into a motorway.
Indeed, Mr. John Armour, former director responsible for roads in Glasgow, who is now retired, is on record as saying that Glasgow benefited from Edinburgh's

inability to decide its priorities for road construction. I hasten to add that this was in no sense Glasgow's fault. All I am saying is that at the beginning of the 1970s Edinburgh's loss was Glasgow's gain. Of course, I accept that at that time the Renfrew dual carriageway was a pressing need in the West of Scotland.
Today, residents in Edinburgh, the Lothian Region and throughout the East of Scotland—I hope that I carry the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyelll with me—believe that the outer city bypass deserves priority second to none. It merits this because it would be an oil-related highway to Grangemouth and other development areas in Scotland, in Livingston and other parts of West Lothian. It would link Scotland's trunk road system other than by using the streets of Edinburgh, many of which are completely unsuitable. It would provide access to jobs and recreation which would benefit the Lothian Region and the East of Scotland.
There are many reasons for giving the outer city bypass top priority. First, it is the policy of the Government to improve the roads leading to oil development areas, but the absence of an outer city bypass is a major obstacle to the free flow of traffic to oil-related areas in Scotland.
Secondly, virtually all towns between the Forth Road Bridge to London can be bypassed, with the exception of Berwick, for which a bypass is being planned. The omission of an outer city bypass for Edinburgh is a glaring one bearing in mind that Edinburgh is one of the most historic cities in Britain, the home of a great international festival, as well as being the capital of Scotland.
Thirdly, traffic wishing to travel through Edinburgh, or traffic between places to the east, south and west of Edinburgh, would be able to bypass the city. Even traffic coming to and from the Forth Road Bridge on the Great North Road would be able to avoid the city centre and suburbs.
Fourthly, the statutory designation of lorry routes in the region, laid down by the Dykes Act, will be more easily established once the outer city bypass is completed. It would be possible to construct parking facilities and service areas at bypass intersections, which would relieve


parking difficulties in Edinburgh and also make it possible for juggernaut lorries to break down their loads into more manageable sizes, which could then be transported to their destinations in Edinburgh or Leith.
Fifthly, some time ago the Lothian Regional Council threw out certain proposals, including a plan for an inner ring road. Consequently, the officials working in the local authority planning departments have the time and are able to complete the planning of the outer city bypass with considerable speed and efficiency. Meanwhile, until the outer city bypass is completed much of the internal traffic planning within Edinburgh must be based to some extent on conjecture. I understand that this is also the point of view of the Cockburn Association, which represents amenity bodies in Edinburgh.
Sixthly, traffic congestion in Corstorphine, in my constituency, has been getting steadily worse for 20 years in St. Johns Road, which is a shopping centre for an area containing upwards of 50,000 people. It is becoming appalling. It has one of the most serious traffic congestion problems anywhere in Europe, and in the context of much development on the west side of Edinburgh, it is essential that the outer city bypass and the Corstorphine bypass is completed as soon as possible.
The final reason that I put forward is contained in the words of Lord Ferrier, who has been fighting for an outer city bypass for the last quarter of a century. He said:
Half a bypass is like half a tunnel through a hill".
In order to gain maximum benefit from it the whole bypass should be begun and completed within five years.
This is a modest request to make, considering that this project was approved by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the development plan in 1957, more than 20 years ago. After all, residents in the Lothian Region know that there has been a massive shift in resources from that region to Strathclyde Owing to the revaluation of rateable values in Scotland more than £5 million that would have been allocated to the Lothian Region is to be allocated this year to the Strathclyde Region. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) made a

powerful speech on this subject during the debate on the rate support grant.
As the Minister knows, four of the present Scottish Office Ministers represent Glasgow constituencies. Therefore, it seems only fair and appropriate that the Minister should be given the opportunity to prove that the Government will act in the interests of the East of Scotland and of Scotland as a whole, and not merely in the interests of Strathclyde. The Minister can, after all, undertake to consider giving the Lothian Regional Council an increased allocation for the rate support grant in future so that the outer city bypass and western approach road can be completed speedily.
However, if the Government should choose to neglect the interests of Edinburgh and of the East of Scotland by depriving the Lothian Regional Council of the necessary resources, they may well become a burning issue.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. George Younger: I intervene briefly to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) on raising this subject tonight. It is one that is not new to many of us, but it is extremely valuable to have it raised by him, and I pay tribute to his work to help along this project. I also wish to associate myself with his tribute to my noble Friend Lord Ferrier, who has fought for a quarter of a century and more for this and who believes very strongly in it.
I am very glad that at long last there now seems to be an agreed scheme and route for an Edinburgh bypass outside the city. It must be agreed by us all that this is long overdue. Edinburgh must be one of the very few cities of its size and character in Western Europe not to have a bypass for traffic.
The congestion within the city now is really very severe, and it undoubtedly a hindrance both to business and to tourism, especially in the summer months. When I was in the Scottish Office, as Minister for Development, I was most anxious to try to solve the problem, but I was always frustrated by the lack of agreement locally about what sort of road was needed and what route it should take.
I hope very much that the Scottish Office will lose no time in putting the


planning work in hand as far as it can be at the moment. Time is already short and unless work is begun soon the city will literally seize up with traffic congestion. We can all understand that the Government's shortage of money may make it difficult to go ahead with construction work at the moment, but I hope that there will be no holding back on the planning work. It will then be open to the next Government to go ahead with construction work as soon as possible after all the preliminary planning is complete.
If I may be permitted to voice one final thought, it is that in recent years we have had local government reform. It is fair to say that it has not been universally popular or universally welcomed, but I cannot help wondering whether the fact that we at least have some agreement about the route and type of bypass has any connection with that local government reform. Has it, perhaps, any connection with the fact that previously this matter had to be sorted out between East Lothian County Council, Midlothian County Council, West Lothian County Council, Edinburgh Corporation and Musselburgh Town Council, whereas now we have one authority responsible for it all—the Lothian Regional Council? I put that as a rhetorical question only I wonder whether we have not perhaps unearthed at least one benefit from the much maligned reform of local government.

12.24 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I shall not pursue the attempt by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to justify his part in putting through this House the Bill to reorganise local government. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) for raising this subject, in which I know lie has been interested for some years. The bypass in question is being built by the Lothian Regional Council, as highway authority. It is not one for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is directly responsible, but it has several links with major trunk roads which make it of concern to him as the trunk road authority in Scotland.
The hon. Member must be pleased that, after a long campaign for the construction

of an outer bypass of Edinburgh, the next financial year should see work beginning on the first section, which will provide much-needed relief to travellers who at present suffer very considerable delays in the bottleneck in Colinton village. This section is programmed to be completed in the financial year 1980–81 and, even on its own, will make a very useful contribution towards the improvement of communications in the south west flank of the city.
I understand also from the regional council that work is to be put in hand on the design of the Sighthill section of the bypass and on the regional council's section of the Musselburgh bypass. The Secretary of State will of course be responsible for the trunk road section of the Musselburgh bypass and his Department's engineers are maintaining liaison with their counterparts in the regional council to make provision for the linking of their respective schemes at the appropriate time.
A similar link-up will be required at the western end of the bypass, where I know the hon. Member has a special constituency interest. In this case, the regional council is safeguarding for detailed evaluation the route of a western approach road, which will be linked up to an extension of the M8 trunk road. Along with the Sighthill section of the bypass, this will relieve the congested areas of Corstorphine and Gorgie/Dalry. Here again, the Scottish Development Department's engineers will maintain liaison as necessary with their regional colleagues to ensure that the construction programmes are co-ordinated.
Such a major project as the construction of about 15 miles of new road, largely through the outskirts of a major urban and suburban area, is costly—£30 million at current prices. It also poses formidable problems of design, land use and environmental effect. I understand that there are, for instance, unresolved objections about the amendments to the development plan providing for some realignment of some of the western part of the bypass. Its design and construction will be a major undertaking for the regional council and must be related to the technical and financial resources available to carry it out. It is for the regional council to propose in the annual transport policies


and programme document—the TPP—which it submits to the Secretary of State, the period over which the bypass should be built.
The hon. Member has made comments, rather unfairly, about the amount of road building in the past in Edinburgh and Glasgow. It is certainly true that a great deal more road building has been done in Glasgow than in Edinburgh. Nobody disputes that. It is a fact, also, that much of this road work in Glasgow was done before 1975, when a specific grant was available in respect of principal road schemes submitted by the local highway authorities. What Edinburgh got by way of roads grants in the 'sixties and early 'seventies—about which I see the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West has tabled a Question—was related to the programme that it proposed; I stress that it was not cut so that funds could be diverted to Glasgow.
Since reorganisation of local government and of the system of central Government support for local government expenditure in 1975, central Government assistance for local authority road construction and improvement is no longer given by way of specific grant. It is now given in a rather different way—namely, through rate support grant. I can certainly assure the hon. Member that expenditure by Lothian Region on the Edinburgh outer bypass will be treated in this way, and that the loan charges will be taken into account as relevant expenditure in the rate support grant calculation.
What the Secretary of State is concerned to do is to ensure that the resources available nationally for capital investment in roads and transport are shared sensibly among the various local authorities. The annual TPPs submitted by highway authorities give details of their intended capital investment programmes. On the basis of these and the overall resources which can be allocated to roads and transport; the Secretary of State gives a single annual block consent under Section 94 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 for roads and transport in each local authority's area. Similarly, each local authority is given a guideline for roads and transport capital expenditure in the later years of the five year TPP period.
I know that the regional council has sought to co-operate fully with the Scot

tish Development Department by framing its capital expenditure programme in keeping with the financial guidelines issued by the Department for the years beyond 1978–79. I should like to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, however, as my Department is doing to the regional council, that these guidelines, promulgated, considerably in advance, are intended to be what their name implies—merely guidelines. Every attempt is made to retain some measure of flexibility in the operation of the TPP process and to use it as a means for the exchange of information. The aim is to arrive at a position whereby, so far as the overall availability of national resources allows, the guidelines adequately take into account the regional council's desired programme and the likely practicable rate of progress. If, therefore, the regional council wishes to review the level of transport investment that it wishes to make in the later years of the TPP period, I suggest that it looks at the matter with the Department as soon as possible.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this subject, which is one of great interest to many residents in the Edinburgh area. I assure him that I appreciate his wish to see construction of the bypass proceed as smoothly and as quickly as is possible to completion so as to provide the relief of which he speaks to a number of problem areas in and around the city which it is planned to achieve. As I have said, central Government are maintaining the necessary liaison with the regional council in terms of the trunk road interest, and will be willing to re-examine the future roads and transport capital expenditure guidelines should the regional council so desire.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, slightly unfairly—perhaps he did not mean to be—said that four of the Ministers from the Scottish Office come from Glasgow. I hope that he is not implying that we have been unfair to the capital city. It is only a few weeks ago that I received a kind letter from the Convener of Education and the senior official thanking me in particular, for the extra money that I provided for the Lothian Region.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Lothian Region, as well as every other region, will receive its fair share of any expenditure that I have some say in procuring. It is only fair to accept that the


Secretary of State approved the development plan in 1957. I am getting fed up with the fact that matters that were current during the time of the previous Conservative Government, indeed, Governments—I take the example of the Kessock Bridge—are considered to be the sole responsibility of the present Government. I am fed up with hon. Members looking to the Government to try to save some of the schemes that have been delayed through indecision.
Although I am a great lover of Edinburgh, it figures much smaller in my affection than does Glasgow. However, it is plain that over the years Edinburgh has, as the hon. Member for Ayre said, been plagued by indecision. Whether we talk about opera, sewerage or roads, Edinburgh seems to be plagued with that indecision. Perhaps those in Edinburgh are not gifted with the directness and desire to do things that we have in Glasgow.
I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West will accept from me that we as a Department are prepared to discuss with the region as soon as possible some way, within the limits of finance, to speed up progress on the bypass and to get the whole outer bypass into operation. My Department has already sent a letter to the Lothian Regional Council inviting it to discuss the matter with the Department. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, allowing for constraints on public expenditure, we shall do everything possible to ensure that the capital city gets a bypass as soon as we can reasonably provide that which is requested. I hope that the message will go from the House to the region that it should come to us and that we shall be as agreeable and receptive as possible in trying to meet its wishes.

12.34 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has said, and I ask him two questions.
I am still at a loss to know precisely the point in raising the subject in the first place, other than the publicity that, perhaps, we all like in the evening papers, or wherever else it may lie. However, my understanding is that the Lothian Regional Council has fully taken on board all that has been said tonight. It is doing an extremely competent job. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) said, it may be a much better arrangement than East Lothian, West Lothian or the City of Edinburgh. However, I do not understand precisely the point of raising the subject.
I put a direct question to my hon. Friend: is not the Lothian Regional Council doing a first-class job already, without parliamentary help? Is there anything that it should be doing which we should try to persuade it to do?
Secondly, will the Minister take into account the problems in areas such as West Lothian where there is motorway construction? During the summer this creates havoc, particularly in the horticulture and farming areas. Constructors need to exercise particular care during the building of the Stirling motorway. What was the point of raising the debate?

Mr. McEIhone: We understand the point of the debate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West has been assiduous in quoting from The Scotsman.
I take the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about the construction of roads in summer. I shall pass his remarks on to the appropriate authority. I have a high regard for the Lothian Region.
We must remember that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West is expecting an addition to his family shortly. We all wish him well. We also wish his good lady wife well in her confinement.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock